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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree totally. multiplayer only with dlc included on disc.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
So you just assume that effort and production isn't just going right back into the multiplayer?
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.
A $60 game is not defined by having both a multiplayer and single player component. I hope you know that lol.
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.
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.
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.
I've been playing multiplayer games for like 15 years. Not once have I encountered that issue.
If your gonna sell mp only drop the price at least.
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.
For full price it better have a single player too. Cheaper, then nah, i dont mind then
If your only going to sell MP use the resources you would normally have allocated for SP and make the MP more robust and complete. If you give me a top notch quality product than I'am willing to pay fullprice. No need for any extra fluff.
I have 150 hours logged in Battlefield 4 multiplayer. I have 0 hours logged in Battlefield 4 singleplayer. Are they necessary? Not necessarily.
If you want my $$$ they do. Most of these games have started as SP games then were hijacked and ruined by MP components.
Perhaps not. But if you're game does not have a single player campaign, it should have the necessary multiplayer content to justify a $60 price, as TitanFall is almost certain to retail for. Otherwise, lower the price to be commensurate and reflective of the game's content.
I just don't think multi-player only games are all that great. Last year you had game of the year candidates The Last of Us, Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider, Grand Theft Auto 5, Zelda: A Link Between Worlds, Tearaway, Guacamelee... almost everything are all strong single player games that maybe have multi-player tacked on. I have a feeling that Titanfall is going to be like Words With Friends, it will be popular for a moment in time and then will be quickly forgotten.
My favorite part is when games like COD and Battlefield get these campaign dev diaries that talk about the attention to detail they put into the characters, when the majority of the user base just ignores the single player all together. Maybe if they focused less on a really half baked single player campaign then the meat of the game:the multiplayer, would be much better, especially the massively disappointing levolution, which is just prebaked animations playing out instead of the dynamic physics that they advertised.
I don't mind one way or another, just if you are going to do both don't half ass one.
Exactly, as long as they're real about it who cares? There are all different kinds of games to play right now, they just need to be honest with everyone what it is from the get-go.
I prefer single player on 99% of the games I play that have mp components; online mp to me is a bonus, not a requirement anyways. Outside competition or practicing for competition I can live without online mp in the games I play. What I really want is devs to concentrate on sp campaigns and stop relying on mp for that extra "incentive" to keep playing for another few hours a day; not all games need online to be good/fun.
Completely agree with you. Batman and GOW did not need MP.
i would rather see *more* of a focus on single player, so yes... they are necessary.
Battlefield never needed a campaign to make it what it is.
case in point battlefield 1942.
a pc only game where mp only games fit a lot better in. Cause when console servers (for mp only games)go down you own a useless piece of plastic. With pc people can buy new servers and mod it to keep it going, consoles players you are out of luck.
Well i can live without MP!SP experiencies is what makes me pay to play games for 40 years not: kill..frag..kill..frag...kill. .frag..over and over without anykind of meaning.I guess its more easy to make a Mp game for developers,and them slap the same $60!there will come the time again when all you Mp freaks will get full of shooting and slicing the same thing over and over again and then you will all beg for the good Sp to come back.Let the age speak!
Why is it okay for a SP game like Infamous to have no MP and only SP be and charged at full price but Titanfall with award winning and best of show winning MP with only MP and no SP is not okay?
because there's considerably more content in a SP campaign than there is in any MP component. also, playing through a story is a lot better than playing through the same, boring 15 minutes over, and over again.
Your precious Titanfall will become unplayable once EA pull the servers for it... remember that.
Umm its runs on MS servers... And what old PC games can you not still play? PC gamers aren't like console gamers were they move onto the next game and the community dies within the first week, PC games stay alive for years if not forever.
@Gabenbrah I was referring to the console version.
Most of the MP games started as SP only so, your argument stinks.
Are Single Player Campaigns Really Necessary For Multiplayer-oriented Games? Yes, all games should have an SP element
Right now because Sony pulled the online for MAG, that game is now useless because it was a MP only... anyone who missed out will not be playing that in the future... I thought games were meant to last through generations and not become unplayable in few years... If we can play games from 25 years ago, why can't I play games that came out just recently?? something really wrong with that image.
No need for single player if MP is strong enough.
I play both Single player games and Multiplayer games, but I spend the majority of time playing Multiplayer. Take Battlefield and COD for instance, both have good campaigns, but I spend the majority of my time playing both games online so my money is well spend on the multiplayer part, but not the single player 'cause I only play it once, twice if it's really good. I will be getting Titanfall when it's released and I honestly don't mind that it doesn't have a SP campaign 'cause my time will be spent playing multiplayer anyway.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.