Top
130°

Are Single Player Campaigns Really Necessary For Multiplayer-oriented Games?

Nerdacy: It's something we don't like to really think of, but are single player campaigns all that necessary when we're buying a video game primarily for its multiplayer component?

The story is too old to be commented.
NYC_Gamer1345d ago (Edited 1345d ago )

I don't believe online focused shooters should even bother with single player campaigns..Its not like the story/plot/characters are going to be well put together anyway.

ZodTheRipper1345d ago

It's just hard to sell an online only game for the full price ...that's why publishers still insist on half-assed campaigns. Personally, I'd hope that games like BF and CoD don't have any campaign but rather more maps, more modes, etc. ...but I know there are tons of people who play only the CoD campaign every year so it's ok for me as it is.

christheredhead1345d ago

I agree. I wish they would ditch the single player and change the pricing model. I don't mind the campaign myself, but why not just do 40 dollars for the multiplayer? Maybe have the single player as digital download for 10 - 20 bucks. Just an idea.

Ares84HU1345d ago

Well how about Battlefield Bad Company 1&2? It had amazing story modes. They just kind of dropped the ball with BF3 and BF4. Also, in my opinion every CoD story was awesome. I like the single player portion of every CoD game more rhan the mp. I know I'm the minority here but for me single player is #1. I always complete the story first than I go online playing.

I think they should focus more and story modes but at the same time build on mp modes as well. I'm sure that Activision and EA make enough $ to do both and do them well.

Noobz11345d ago

I have a terrible idea, why not change full price (60) but have all updates and future content included? No micro transactions and no paid map packs. Instead make it all free. That would also help keep the community alive and last longer.

incredibleMULK1345d ago

I agree totally. multiplayer only with dlc included on disc.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1345d ago
gnomefighter3d1345d ago

There would be no single player games anymore.. Sad Face... Everything is turning into this multiplaying environment with mouthing off little kids. I could personally deal more with less multiplayer focus and more single player game focus. Mind as well throw in more focus on a story as well over graphics. But that's just me, remembering what gaming used to be....

MWH1345d ago (Edited 1345d ago )

The ones who remember how games used to be will be extinct within the next 10 years, sadly.

Most probably there will be few to none who actually lived those days and are still around to remind them. Yes it's us and them just like now and then.

The "them" i'm talking about are the torch carriers of gaming who their fondest memories wont go back to more than games such as Halo, GTA, CoD, Kill Zone, God of War and Gears of War.. and they're not the brightest example of gamers, not all of them of course, but it is what it is.

The wheel will keep turning.

dragonhearts1345d ago

Not everything has to be multiplayer, Everyone will not always have online access. There's nothing wrong with being able to jump into a single player mode game and enjoy a little story. Maybe developers like creating a story, there are countless reasons. No need to remove it just because some don't play it.

Volkama1344d ago

But there's also no reason for every game to have it, just because of some hollow expectation. Every game doesn't need to cater to every person, and can't even if it tries.

Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament used to be kings of the genre, and in those single player was just death match vs bots and only existed for a little practice.

I can see an argument that they should provide bots for people that want to play alone, but I doubt it'd be offline because then the One would have to run the ~50 AI that populate a level and that'd mean leaving significant CPU headroom throughout the game.

Hellsvacancy1345d ago (Edited 1345d ago )

They could sell them separately I wouldn't buy the sp for Battlefield but I would the multiplayer, Max Payne 3 I'd rather the sp over the mp (the mp for MP3 was pretty bad)

-Foxtrot1345d ago (Edited 1345d ago )

Well if your going to sell an online ONLY game, an online which is basically the same kind of online you would see in a game with single player aswell, as the same price as a game with single player AND multiplayer then yeah it's pretty necessary.

If that's the case you may aswell just make the multiplayer game downloadable for a cheaper price.

Fireseed1345d ago

So you just assume that effort and production isn't just going right back into the multiplayer?

1345d ago
malokevi1345d ago

Why dont you tell us how you REALLY feel? What game is it, in particular, that you think is just more of the same with absolutely nothing new?

Just an innocent question is all.

Pandamobile1345d ago

A $60 game is not defined by having both a multiplayer and single player component.

I hope you know that lol.

-Foxtrot1345d ago (Edited 1345d ago )

No but it's about content

With a multiplayer game you can't do that much with it except new game modes, maps, weapons/skins etc

With single player games you can make them as long as you like and you can add massive expansions to them over time in the form of DLC. We have stuff like The Ballad of Gay Tony, Shivering Isles, Undead Nightmare, All the Borderlands 2 DLC etc but with multiplayer all you can do is the same old maps, characters, skins, weapons.

Are you really telling me you would pay the same price for an multiplayer ONLY game then what you did with GTAV, Skyrim or The Last of Us.

How can you pay the same, for less.

Pandamobile1345d ago

Hell yeah, I'd pay $60 for a good multi-player game over a $60 single player game.

The Last of Us would last me for the length of the game, then I'd probably never return to it. GTA V and Skyrim would be more worthy of a $60 investment because there's no real "end" to the game.

A good multiplayer game will last me a couple years (probably 100-300 hours over the course of two years).

Then again, as a PC gamer, I was raised on multiplayer games so our perceptions of a game's value are obviously different. But please stop saying that a multiplayer game can't be a $60 title when plenty of single-player games are $60 and offer much less play time than you'd typically put into a MP game.

mydyingparadiselost1345d ago

A multiplayer game eventually goes down though, servers are not forever but a single player experience can be had for as long as you have the system to run it. A multiplayer only game is more like a long term rental instead of a product purchase.

Pandamobile1345d ago

I've been playing multiplayer games for like 15 years. Not once have I encountered that issue.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1345d ago
AceBlazer131345d ago

If your gonna sell mp only drop the price at least.

annus1345d ago

30 devs on SP, 40 devs on MP.
or
70 devs on MP.

Why should it cost less again? It's the same amount of effort, only the part the majority are buying it for will be FAR better.

klarax1345d ago

For full price it better have a single player too. Cheaper, then nah, i dont mind then

Show all comments (49)
The story is too old to be commented.