General Zechs
Neo Member
The value of any game is subjective but there is one fact I agree with. When the servers are turned off for any multiplayer only game, your game is no longer playable.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
So why does a multiplayer-only title need a single player component?
- Thread starter Silky
- Start date
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
A good multiplayer game might have less assets than a singleplayer game, but will have had significantly more time spent on balancing - its a false equivalency to assume a singleplayer game 'costs more' than a multiplayer game, particularly a multiplayer game that has been well balanced to, say, competitive level standard play
Why does a single player game need a multiplayer component?
Anyway, if you have a MP only game, it better damn well work flawlessly and it better have enough variety and content that is both fulfilling and interesting enough to make up for the lack of conventional, single player/ offline content
Anyway, if you have a MP only game, it better damn well work flawlessly and it better have enough variety and content that is both fulfilling and interesting enough to make up for the lack of conventional, single player/ offline content
Hip Hop
Member
It works both ways.
Why does a multiplayer game need a single player component?
If a single player only games costs $60, it better damn have over 30 hours of main campaign time.
Longer campaigns or having more maps doesn't make a good game. The amount and length of said content has some part in the overall value of the game, but it's what makes the game engaging, interesting, fun and even addictive is what really matters. Unfortunately that is very subjective and a matter of perception. It's nothing you can pinpoint empirically. However, you can have that 30 hour story mode and 50 multiplayer maps but only 2 hours and 5 maps are actually worth caring about, while everything else is a waste.
That's only true for games where the act of playing isn't enjoyable enough in itself. for those where it is, playtime will easily outlast the campaign. It's especially true of games with flexible or emergent gameplay, like GTA where the campaign is pretty boring compared to stuff like improvising a bowling game using cars and a landing strip.
MP games' strength and weakness is that the pleasure of playing is tied to the people you play with. So depending on the other players, or on whether there are any other players at all, the game may decuple or lose its worth.
Abinash117
Member
It is perception. Many people expect a complete package with it a single player component regardless if the sp is garbage or they play it once and never play it again. Also , it could be the fact that it depends on the franchise that is known for their modes i.e very few buy Assassin's creed or Tomb raider for it's multiplayer and inversely, very few buy BF and COD strictly for their campaigns. Getting rid of campaign modes for a series like BF for the promise of much extra multiplayer content is something many probably would welcome were as if it was like that in Halo many people would get mad. There really hasn't been multiplayer only games that has many content unless they are mmos , which in my opinion proves you can have a multiplayer only game if it has enough content.
In my perception if single player only games are like 6-10 hour linear-ish campaign mode then I see it as a waste of money . I only value rpgs or games like Far cry and gta which has enough content to justify the price for me. While I played and bought bioshock infinite after awhile I thought the game was a waste of money since the game really only had a linear campaign mode and despite the story being amazing once you beat the game you already experienced everything. I get far more hours in multiplayer games than I do single player in the same game. That happened with ME3 ; I spend far more time in the multiplayer than I did the single player despite being a fan of the franchise's single player mode since 2007.
In my perception if single player only games are like 6-10 hour linear-ish campaign mode then I see it as a waste of money . I only value rpgs or games like Far cry and gta which has enough content to justify the price for me. While I played and bought bioshock infinite after awhile I thought the game was a waste of money since the game really only had a linear campaign mode and despite the story being amazing once you beat the game you already experienced everything. I get far more hours in multiplayer games than I do single player in the same game. That happened with ME3 ; I spend far more time in the multiplayer than I did the single player despite being a fan of the franchise's single player mode since 2007.
Yeah I agree, but I don't think people would react well if CS was released on steam for $60 either.
jim-jam bongs
Member
There's a distinction I think between a story-driven singleplayer component, and one which merely serves to introduce the game mechanics to players. Some people are intimidated by jumping straight into a PvP game without any knowledge or experience of the learning curve, and in that situation I think it's a good idea for some kind of bot mode to exist there.
When I first played DOTA2 in beta, there were no bots but the player base wasn't as experienced either. Now that there are bots, I'd probably spend a couple of hours getting familiar with classes and such before throwing myself in off the deep end.
When I first played DOTA2 in beta, there were no bots but the player base wasn't as experienced either. Now that there are bots, I'd probably spend a couple of hours getting familiar with classes and such before throwing myself in off the deep end.
I paid $60 for Shadowrun (2007) and it's my favorite game of all time. It was worth the price to me, but the game obviously should have been no more than $40 at Launch.
It's just easier to sell a SP only game for the higher price point to the mass market, MP-only seems very risky to people, more so than the tons of $60 mediocre SP games for some reason.
If a game is SP only, I won't even bother with it at launch, I'll just wait for a sale and play it later. There are so many games to play, and I can constantly just wait out the big single player releases for their inevitable sales, Day 1 Singleplayer is just a waste of money. If a game has absolutely fantastic MP and a bunch of people are playing it, then I will go out of my way to get it ASAP. I did this with Shadowrun, played the demo, loved it, then myself and a few friends all bought it and played the shit out of it. I still play it regularly.
Twitch viewing has also changed my buying habit for SP games, I have no problem watching a bunch of a new game on Twitch to see if it interests me. I can watch people I know who are good at games, have similar tastes as me, and have honest opinions. If it looks amazing and they are having a great time, then I am more inclined to go out and get it. If it doesn't look too great, or doesn't have lasting appeal, then I will just enjoy watching the game and either get it when it is cheap, or not at all.
It's just easier to sell a SP only game for the higher price point to the mass market, MP-only seems very risky to people, more so than the tons of $60 mediocre SP games for some reason.
If a game is SP only, I won't even bother with it at launch, I'll just wait for a sale and play it later. There are so many games to play, and I can constantly just wait out the big single player releases for their inevitable sales, Day 1 Singleplayer is just a waste of money. If a game has absolutely fantastic MP and a bunch of people are playing it, then I will go out of my way to get it ASAP. I did this with Shadowrun, played the demo, loved it, then myself and a few friends all bought it and played the shit out of it. I still play it regularly.
Twitch viewing has also changed my buying habit for SP games, I have no problem watching a bunch of a new game on Twitch to see if it interests me. I can watch people I know who are good at games, have similar tastes as me, and have honest opinions. If it looks amazing and they are having a great time, then I am more inclined to go out and get it. If it doesn't look too great, or doesn't have lasting appeal, then I will just enjoy watching the game and either get it when it is cheap, or not at all.
hentaicook
Neo Member
I went to a theme park and recorded on a stop watch just how many minutes I spent on the actual rides. For 75$, I got 6 minutes worth of single player content on the roller coasters.
The consumer purchases a game based not just on the amount of content, but the quality as well. That's how we justify buying Single or Multiplayer only games.
The consumer purchases a game based not just on the amount of content, but the quality as well. That's how we justify buying Single or Multiplayer only games.
It doesn't and this excuse that "boohoo Playstation Notwork is gonna be down and I can't play my game" is stupid
There's hundreds games out there, go plays those if your online isn't working. Why does a DICE need to waste time and money on a BF campaign? So that you can play an absolutely awful single player for an hour while they do server maintenance?
Stop taking time and resources away from your main focus just so you can check off a feature on a list. There are very few, and I can probably count them on one hand, games that excel at both single player and multiplayer.
There's hundreds games out there, go plays those if your online isn't working. Why does a DICE need to waste time and money on a BF campaign? So that you can play an absolutely awful single player for an hour while they do server maintenance?
Stop taking time and resources away from your main focus just so you can check off a feature on a list. There are very few, and I can probably count them on one hand, games that excel at both single player and multiplayer.
You know what else CoD4, Crysis, and Orange Box had in common? Single-player modes. Very good single player modes.
I am actually more of the opposite, games including only sp with no MP or a bland mp is where I usually wait for price drops. MP games are for me worth 60$ if made right,bf series is a great example giving you a lot of content as a mp game(server issues are beside the point).
So for me at least 60$ for a pretty good MP game is totally worth it. However 60$ for a game like The Order is not worth it when I am finished with it after 20hours or so.
A big example which someone might hate me for is TLOUs campaign which is good but not the best for replayability.
I really tried to play the campaign again but it felt incredibly bland mostly because of all cutscenes that I had already seen. Its like watching a movie again and for me watching movies more than one time is not something I like. The mp mode was good for 5 hours or so before I got bored
So for me at least 60$ for a pretty good MP game is totally worth it. However 60$ for a game like The Order is not worth it when I am finished with it after 20hours or so.
A big example which someone might hate me for is TLOUs campaign which is good but not the best for replayability.
I really tried to play the campaign again but it felt incredibly bland mostly because of all cutscenes that I had already seen. Its like watching a movie again and for me watching movies more than one time is not something I like. The mp mode was good for 5 hours or so before I got bored
BibiMaghoo
Member
I've seen this arguement presented before, but testing does not come close to the cost of a dozen to a hundred people spending months producing art, code, sound, animations and a hundred other components. Yes the level of testing needs to be good, but you will never convince me the cost of that is higher, because I just don't believe that at all, and see nothing to suggest I should change that view.
I think the OP grossly misunderstands why so many took issue with TF being full priced, which is a gross lack of base content and overall shallow gameplay. While the basic game is fun, the game just totally lacks the depth to justify the game costing so much. A £45/$60 MP-only game can be acceptable but it would need to bring so much more to the table than what Titanfall brought.
Because there aren't always other people to play with? Either the Internet is down, your friends aren't around, or a game you enjoy doesn't have a large enough user base.
Seems pretty self-explanatory ... But, there you go ...
I asked this ages ago and still ask it now.
What exactly is the point of an online only multiplayer game with no single player component?
The game lives and dies by EA's decision on its longevity. Personally speaking i do not like the idea of any game i have essentially being rendered completely useless x years down the line if the devs/publisher decides to shut down the servers.
On PC this isn't as much of a problem since the community will have workarounds to keep it going but for the 360 and XBO unless they are hacked apart Wii style doesn't Titanfall basically become a useless disc the day EA decides its time is up.
With a single player component at the very least if that were to happen you'd still be able to get some use from the game as opposed to having a useless disc if and when the servers shutdown.
What exactly is the point of an online only multiplayer game with no single player component?
The game lives and dies by EA's decision on its longevity. Personally speaking i do not like the idea of any game i have essentially being rendered completely useless x years down the line if the devs/publisher decides to shut down the servers.
On PC this isn't as much of a problem since the community will have workarounds to keep it going but for the 360 and XBO unless they are hacked apart Wii style doesn't Titanfall basically become a useless disc the day EA decides its time is up.
With a single player component at the very least if that were to happen you'd still be able to get some use from the game as opposed to having a useless disc if and when the servers shutdown.
The Real Napsta
Member
Wouldn't an MP only game that has single player not be a MP only game?
ScatheZombie
Member
The simplest way to see this, and something almost everyone can do, is check out PSN, XBL or Steam and see the completion rates for SP modes versus MP modes in literally any game.
Unfortunately, most CoD games conveniently have no MP achievements or trophies - but it's pretty clear when you look at almost every other comparable shooter and see SP achievement completion rates (for the first couple of achievements) in the 70-80% range while the MP achievement completion rates (even for things like "Play one MP match") are usually around 30-40%. There's a few outliners where the MP can get up to the 50-60% range, but the majority of the time SP is literally twice as popular as MP - even for titles known almost exclusively for their MP game.
The thousands at midnight launches don't compare to the 10s of millions that ultimately purchase the game. Another example I could give you is that, in multiplayer development you can safely assume that 5x your peak concurrency is your total active player base (I'm an MMO designer and this is true like 99% of the time). So, let's say, for argument's sake that a given Call of Duty game has 500,000 concurrent players in multiplayer. That means that there are about 2.5m active players in the multiplayer system. Fuck it, let's say there are 1m concurrent and 5m active, because why not? Sounds like a shitload right? Except most CoD games sell in the 10-15m range (some even more over their total lifetime) during that window. That comes to about 50-75% of players are not in the multiplayer pool. Which reflects almost perfectly with the achievement/trophy completion rates.
So yeah, a shitload of people buy it for MP. But about double to triple that buy it for SP, a good portion even exclusively for SP.
NullPointer
Member
If they're asking full price but still have a COD-esque DLC map pack schedule, then yeah, it doesn't come across as a good deal from day one. That was a huge red flag for me with Titanfall.
Either launch with so much content the question doesn't come up, or make post-release DLC maps free.
But multiplayer-only and $60 and premium map packs? No thanks.
Many single player games have pointless tacked on multiplayer modes for the sake of it now for this reason.
As someone who loves SP but couldnt care less about MP in most games, I agree they shouldn't have to be a complete package. I dont want developers having to waste time and resources to throw in a MP mode.
Unfortunately though people feel you need to have both in todays market.
The idea that somehow a multiplayer only title can't be worth $60 is absurd. There is every likelihood that you'll get much more experience out of a $60 multiplayer title than a $60 single player title.
If a game looks good, I'll get it, regardless of what it is. I love single player games and I love multiplayer games.
If a game looks good, I'll get it, regardless of what it is. I love single player games and I love multiplayer games.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
I bought The Orange Box purely for TF2 Beta Access.
The fact Portal was great was a huge bonus, but it was TF2 I was buying.
It doesn't matter if you want to believe it or not, its true.
A singleplayer map once its built is basically untouched until the game ships unless something wrong is found within it by QA.
A competetively balanced multiplayer map is subject to hundreds of iterative passes and thousands of man hours of play testing.
A singleplayer only weapon gets a quick balance pass to make sure its not too OP given its context (and even that can be skipped if there are other limiting factors like special scarce ammo, or its designed to be an end game reward)
A multiplayer weapon has hundreds of hours to comparative testing versus every other weapon to make it balanced within a group but still feel unique enough to be worth considering using or fulfilling a specfici niche.
I mean, just because you attribute value to hours spent in Maya more than you do to hours spent in Excel, doesn't mean those hours weren't spent.
No game should ever be worth $60, but a multiplayer game should have tremendously more value than a single player one.
BibiMaghoo
Member
You are comparing levels of testing. I don't dispute that a multiplayer level requires more testing than single player. I dispute that the cost of that is anywhere near as great as the creation of new, one time use assets over the course of a single player level. You have not addressed that at all with any veracity. You simply do not need the same level of manpower to do that testing, as you do the creation of each asset that goes into a game, and you cannot rightly dispute that in terms of creation, a multiplayer only game (excluding MMO's) have anywhere near the same volume. Because generally speaking, we are talking about a number of small areas played in loops, versus larger areas played through progressively.
Similar threads
- Poll