Square Enix focusing on multiplayer over single-player games

Square Enix future games and projects to focus more on multiplayer and games as a service.

The story is too old to be commented.
-Foxtrot301d ago

Oh f*** sake...they are doing a Ubisoft...the Japanese Ubisoft

We want single player titles guys, we don't care for multiplayer that much unless the game is something built up for that. Ubisoft ruins their franchises because they waste most of their resources on adding in online shit that dosen't need to be there.

Deus Ex, Final Fantasy, Tomb Raider, Dragon Quest Kingdom Hearts, Thief, Just Cause...all franchises which don't need it. Even the upcoming Marvel games whatever they may be shouldn't need it.

DigitalRaptor301d ago (Edited 301d ago )

Square Enix must be worried about their properties as they stand. Only a company very uncertain about the future of their gaming IPs would do this... because of games as a service, and because they see others profiting from that model, to them it seems like guaranteed money. They currently strike a good balance, and only really make online games that make sense. I've even enjoyed their foray into mobile games like Hitman GO and Lara Croft GO, but it's really going to upset the balance if they take current single-player IPs and mess around with their formula to add multi-player. I've supported them well this generation (I bought and enjoyed Murdered: Soul Suspect for heaven's sake), so this is terrible news for me.

TheHan299d ago

Not necessarily all the time, they could just be looking into ways to innovate their iPs. Just cause they decide to add online to a game or series that didn’t have it before doesn’t mean they don’t trust the success of their old and new iPs I simply see it as innovation towards a franchise. If you don’t like the way their taking things then just don’t play the online modes or any other extras that wasn’t part of the series before.

Kenshin_BATT0USAI301d ago

They have a lot of upcoming single player games though. Maybe you should rack your brain a bit before posting to shit on stuff all the time?

-Foxtrot301d ago (Edited 301d ago )

But we're not talking about whats in development now, we're talking what's coming up after with their new focused

Next time read the article man...jeez always on the attack aren't you. It's like an itch...did I like reply to you once in a bad way or something?

Then we have talk of "Games as a service"...come on thats bad

WeebLord300d ago

It's foxtrot, the master of hyperbole and speaking for everyone.

300d ago
moegooner88301d ago (Edited 301d ago )

You would think given how well their latest SP games such as Nier and the incomplete FFXV have performed, they would be happy, but no, they have to go and pull crap like this. The majority of Ubisoft online titles anyway such as the Division and for Honor lose most of their player count sometime in the first year after launch, whereas SP games always maintain their appeal going forward.

-Foxtrot300d ago

Ubisofts problem is they stretch out online titles which mean a lot of their fans will drop the previous online game for another one. If you are playing the Division you might see Wildlands come out and go onto that meaning less players playing their last online game. You don't need that many online communities. Rainbow Six was their first person game, the Division was their third person and the Crew was their racing game...that's all you needed really.

The Division, The Crew, WildLands, For Honor, Steep, Rainbow Six, Beyond Good and Evil 2 and Skull & Bones coming up are all online focused. Even games like Watch Dogs 2, Rayman Legends/Origin and Far Cry 5 while being single player have heavy online elements.

Only games they have recently which are single player only are Assassins Creed Origins (which is becoming burnt out still) and South Park (been pushed back so long).

Godmars290300d ago

Only FF15 is no longer SP. Likely was never, or somewhere within "ten years" of development, planned to be.

rainslacker300d ago

Square has said theyre going to focus on many things which don't settle well with the gamers when they do, yet they keep making SP games. Probably more notable ones than many other publishers who have a much bigger focus on MP games.

Remember when Square was going to focus on mobile? I do, and they still release plenty of SP games.

I don't think this is really the time to worry about it, although nothing wrong with expressing interest in SP. But the knee jerk reaction that they're somehow screwing up is premature given their penchant for saying things.

vallencer300d ago

Disagree with just cause not needing multiplayer. That game would be infinitely better with some form of multiplayer. Its built for it with all the crazy antics. Plus the multiplayer mod for the games are super popular. But yeah the others dont need it. I personally hope that they are referring to new ips and not already existing ones. But seeing as how ff15 is getting multiplayer im guessing not.

-Foxtrot300d ago (Edited 300d ago )

Just Cause with it's standard development can just get the single player right and even then you have bugs or the long load times. Not to mention I personally felt Just Cause 3 didn't have enough variety like opinion but I did see people call out of the last one and compare it to the second because of this in reviews.

Can you imagine if they worked on multiplayer? The single player would suffer more...I'd rather see them bring the world to life more and let us interact with it rather then wasting most of their time on a multiplayer people will just leave for GTA Online. The PC community are doing great mods for it...let them take care of it.

It's like people wanting co-op in the Elder Scrolls or Fallout games while not thinking about how it would impact the single players development, especially with the amount of bugs it has when they come out.

Some developers can only do so much...when it comes to "one or the other" then yeah I'd sacrifice the multiplayer every time unless it was a franchise built up for it.

300d ago
Godmars290300d ago

Unfortunately, SP games require more resources, more effort, and don't offer as much return as MP.

WeebLord300d ago

None of these people seem to realize this is the exact same conversation we all had in 2006. The market ultimately decides where publishers look for the money, not N4G.

gangsta_red300d ago

"Unfortunately, SP games require more resources, more effort,..."

How is that? MP games require more testing, balancing, stress testing, server maintenance and constant updating. MP games require way more than putting out a single player game and maybe some DLC down the line.

Godmars290300d ago

You're talking largely about quality assurance and maintaining a MP game, which basically comes down creating an area that multiple gamers play in.

For a SP title, you have to do more than create variations of one setting. You have to make a detailed world where events take place. Things like FF15's - excuse - of a story going from open world to corridor.

gangsta_red299d ago


"You're talking largely about quality assurance and maintaining a MP game, ..."

Which all require more resources and more effort. This and everything else is still considered a part of production and can go on years after release (especially if successful) unlike a single player title.

They same amount of detail goes in to developing mp focused games. Just because one has a story doesn't necessarily mean more resources had to go into it.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 299d ago
Sokol300d ago

I fully agree, what made the company successful were the single player games we all remember and love.

This obsession with adding unneeded multiplayer focus will waste a lot of time and resources with little to no gain and they will lose gamers. Myself included.

If they want to cash in on bare bones games like overwatch and similar rising online only series they have to actually make a ip of that caliber and not ruin current franchise which were created with single player story in mind.

rainslacker300d ago

Hasn't square said this in the past though? Seems they still make plenty of sp experiences. Probably more than most publishers realy, and more that don't involve some kind of mt bs

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 299d ago
Nyxus301d ago

"Games as a Service” is a concept that is often mentioned recently in HD game contexts. Gone are the days in which single-player games were of primary status and multiplayer games secondary."

Please, no.

goken300d ago (Edited 300d ago )

sigh... SE doesn't seem to learn. the last time they tried to depart from their forte ended up with squares slide from their peak. just when you think they learnt their lesson and returned to what they're good at they do this...

_-EDMIX-_300d ago

I hope for the sake of everyone in gaming that this endeavor fails


Lennoxb63300d ago

Multiplayer came before Single player. Just so you know.

AspiringProGenji301d ago (Edited 301d ago )

no thanks!
Thank God for Atlus

KionicWarlord222301d ago

The best games currently are multiplayer games.

They have the biggest communities and the highest revenue.

Games that have high concurrent rates of population are the most profitable.

Welcome to the future square enix.

Nyxus301d ago

They may have the 'biggest communities' and 'highest revenue', but that doesn't make them best.

KionicWarlord222301d ago (Edited 301d ago )

Well that`s the closest reference you would have. If the games are not selling the same pace as major multiplayer games that says everything.

Overwatch became a billion dollar franchise in less then a year it was released.

PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds sold 10 million copies

This is but the movement in the bowl of interconnection. Gaming`s current and future will be all about active online communities.

yeahright2300d ago

Interesting Kionic. Let's apply that same logic to your beloved xbox shall we? So xbox doesn't sell as much as playstation, therefore playstation is the best console out there. Yet you still believe xbox to be the better console.

DarkOcelet301d ago (Edited 301d ago )

It's funny you should say that the best games currently are multiplayer games when the highest rated games this year were Single Player games.

Also if that's the future then I sure as hell don't want to be a part of that Multiplayer filled with Microtransactions to the core bullshit.

KionicWarlord222301d ago

Thats a rating not people buying and playing games percentage

Massive difference in this regard.

Those ratings dont equal cash and communities all the time. Gaming is a very online focus community for sure just looking at twitch.

2pacalypsenow300d ago

"Those ratings dont equal cash and communities all the time"

So your'e basing how good a game is based on how much money it makes and the amount of people streaming it?

yeahright2300d ago

Interesting kionic, let's apply that same logic to Justin bieber shall we? He sells more but is always rated below people like Frank Sinatra and Jimmy Hendricks when talking about the best musicians ever.

LP-Eleven300d ago (Edited 300d ago )

"The best games currently are multiplayer games. "

2017 seems to disagree.

FlameWater300d ago (Edited 300d ago )

Down voting KionicWarlord222 for making a logical argument?!?! Wow some one time play though experience got a high rating so what? It ends up heavily discounted and forgotten about.

Nyxus300d ago

'Forgotten', like Evolve and Lawbreakers you mean? As soon as those games are abandoned they become obsolete, unlike single player games which can be played forever.

P_Bomb300d ago

As opposed to MP-only Star Wars Battlefront which is currently giving away its season pass for free and has been discounted to $4.99 more times than I remember?

FlameWater300d ago

Nyxus, ya lets talk two games that weren't even on the radar
P_Bomb Did you forget who published the game? EA? you know that highly corrupted consecutively voted worst company in America?

Let's not talk about the successful franchises of Valve, Blizzard, Square Enix, Activation, Rockstar, Bungie, 2K etc....that have made well over a billion dollars each on a number of multiplayer franchises. But after all like you were saying games like Hellblade and Persona 5 got super high ratings so therefore billion dollar success stories obviously AHAHAH XD

_-EDMIX-_300d ago (Edited 300d ago )

@Flame-His statements are not logical they're actually subjective which means they're impossible to be any logical or rational explanation in such a statement.

Opinions in regards to subjectivity are by default irrational , there really isn't this logical explanation behind why someone likes something it's simply just an opinion.

The downvotes he's getting makes complete sense it simply means that somebody doesn't agree with him.

That's life.

I mean in the same respect have you never considered that if I multiplayer game fails the servers go down and it becomes forgotten? Because tell me how you're going to play that game regardless if it's discounted when the servers are gone?

Multiplayer components in my opinion are do or die they literally must be the best and captivating markets be successful were as a single player game can be missed understood but it can be experienced 100% to its full potential anytime in the future where multiplayer game lends a lot of its experience to multiple people playing at out of once this actually means that if a multiplayer game fails I can't just pick it up several years later and have the same experience as somebody else especially if the servers are gone but I definitely could let say dislike Final Fantasy XIII and still pick it up and have the same experience as everyone else.

You cannot do that with a failed multiplayer game I would argue even successful multiplayer games you're not going to be able to play some of those games when those servers are gone.

I mean even though I recently played Call of Duty 4 on the PlayStation 3 there are several game modes that basically have no one playing them or the servers have already been shut down or something so I would definitely disagree with the multiplayer component having real value to the consumer especially when you think about longevity you're talking about something that's temporary only for a couple years but at least I could pick up and play Onimusha right now and do every last thing in the game the same way I could when it originally released.

So when people keep trying to use that stupid tired argument of you play and beat a single player game only to never play it again you have to consider for a multiplayer game could you not play the same damn Maps and get your fill of fun and never played again?

I'm sorry but you guys just don't know the degree of how much people like single player or really multiplayer games to really say one is better than the other if somebody actually likes multiplayer games I'm sure they could enjoy playing it multiple times but that seems to be the only genre in which you're kind of forced to enjoy that game during that generation when it's at its peak because I damn well don't see anyone being able to enjoy some of these games 10 years later.

Try playing capture the flag on Battlefield 3 and tell me how you do today.

Nyxus300d ago

@ FlameWater: Persona 5 is a very bad example.

"But in the end Persona 5 had by far the biggest launch ever for the series, and gave publisher-developer Atlus their first ever UK number one."

It doesn't have to be a 'billion dollar success' to be profitable. And again, profits have nothing to do with quality.

FlameWater300d ago (Edited 300d ago )


He uses money as data to show how successful a game is
Using facts and data isn't subjective.
voting is subjective/objective

If a multiplayer game fails it was never worth playing in the first place, there are many examples of games like WOW, COD modern warfare which the PS3 version I believe is still playable, Counter Strike is still being played nearly 17 years and still has a stronger audience than single player games.


Profits have nothing to do with quality? I guess developers are just making games out of the goodness of their hearts. How is Persona a bad example? It proves my point that more people would rather play multiplayer than single.

yeahright2300d ago

That's not what logic is. that's him imposing his own definition of "best" on all of us. His criteria is wildly different than my own and many others.

rainslacker300d ago

I'd say every COD is forgotten after the one or two in the series come out after any given release. Same with BF. Same with pretty much any major MP focused game. Won't the original destiny be pretty much forgotten with D2? How about TitanFall?

Things like Overwatch, or any ongoing franchise is different, but the chance for them to succeed requires a lot of work up front, and they can still fail miserably. But when the next big thing comes along, how long before Overwatch is forgotten for the new shiny thing on the market.

Sure there are things like Counterstrike which have gone on forever, but yeah, who talks about Team Fortress anymore, despite Counterstrike just being a mod of that?

Being forgotten doesn't mean a game is bad, and who cares how much it cost? Most MP games can be gotten cheap as well soon after release, when the player base dies down and they need fresh meat.

People are downvoting Kionic because he makes a blanket statement about a subjective topic, and passes it off as fact, when for this whole gen, big SP games have consistently rated higher than the MP games, which often get constant critism for balancing issues, or launch day issues.

There may be some MP games which are better than some SP games. That is a logical way to look at things. The way Kionic is stating it isn't a logical argument.

The rest of his comment was OK, but what does all that matter to those that want SP games, or prefer them? SE is free to focus on what they want, and others are free to criticize. To me, I don't care that MP games make more money or have bigger communities(assumption on that part). It's a logical reason to know why SE is focusing on them more, but doesn't mean I would support them on it.

yeahright2299d ago

@rainslacker. Exactly, notice when challenged on this he has nothing to say? If it were a logical argument, surely he would be able to point out the fallacies of said challenges.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 299d ago
Puertorock77300d ago

For every one Overwatch how many Lawbreakers do we get? What you failed to realize is successful online multiplayer games are few and far between and if they don't start out successful, they will never be successful because the community will never be there. Successful online games require a community to be part of it.

Some single player games may not start out successful but can eventfully be profitable through hype and word of mouth. Also single player games don't rely on community for it to be good. The game stands on it's own two feet.

It's about balance. If all you make is MP games than how do you expect to sell future MP games to those stuck on the current one?

KionicWarlord222300d ago

The current and future multiplayer games are doing well and sell he most.

Almost every year now the biggest games that sell the most are games with heavy multiplayer or multiplayer online.

Multiplayer games also now do not need to release at the same pace as retail. They even make more more post release.

GTA Online like with in the first year made 700 million dollars in revenue for rockstar

There`s really not much to debate here.

2pacalypsenow300d ago

Two of the best games and GOTY contenders this year are Single Player games.

Liqu1d300d ago

Right, but they aren't on Xbox so he'll just pretend they don't exist.

Razzer300d ago

Welcome to the future, battle born, lawbreakers, evolve......oh wait.

KionicWarlord222300d ago

Every game isn't meant to succeed.

Player Unknown Battlegrounds sold 10 million and reached 1.4 million people actively players daily.


There`s no single player game on the market touching this level of sales or active users daily and its in early access.

There`s nothing to debate razzer this is reality.

Razzer300d ago

The reality is there are successful and unsuccessful games. Multiplayer games are not immune to this reality. Keep harping on pubg if it makes you feel good. You are just ignoring the failures.

KionicWarlord222300d ago

Lol PUBG is only one game wait till CODW2 and Battlefront 2 release.

Same story will unfold.

You got tunnel vision at this point.

ShadowWolf712300d ago

...the same CoD and Battlefront that are putting a very heavy emphasis on their campaigns?

lol ok

Razzer299d ago

Exactly, ShadowWolf712. Talk about tunnel vision, Kionic? lol....please

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 299d ago
+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 299d ago
PhoenixUp301d ago

Does this mean we'll see multiplayer in KH3

goken300d ago

hmmm... Disney vs square enix battle royale could just be a reality then. i can't wait (rolls eyes)

GamesMaster1982300d ago

Hope Not. Kingdom Hearts is a great series please Square Enix dont spoil it with tacked on multiplayer bullshit.

_-EDMIX-_300d ago

I don't think so I think they just mean for certain games in the future.

PhoenixUp300d ago

@ Games

The multiplayer modes in Chain of Memories, 358/2 Days, Birth by Sleep, Dream Drop Distance, & Union Cross are all great features.

No reason to believe it'd suddenly be a horrible feature in KH3.

rezzah299d ago

I believe MP in KH3 was already mentioned by SE prior to this public announcement.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 299d ago