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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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 JC2..my 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.
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.
"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.
@gangsta_red: 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.
"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.
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.
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
"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."
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...
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.
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.
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.
'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.
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?
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
@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.
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.
Nyxus
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.
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.
@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.
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?
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.
The last time I got really invested in a MP game was with WOW. My play time of other MP games or SP games took a nosedive. While there is a lot of content in WOW, it's very repetative and redundant. I was doing the same stuff over and over again, and despite being in a good guild with lots of people I loved playing with, I eventually got to a point where I just lost interest in the game in favor of the community.
While at the time it was good to play the game since I was back in college and on limited disposable income, I found that my priorities for gaming were shifting in a way that i didn't feel was proper. I game because I love the experiences. I love to see the technical achievements. I love the fun. I wasn't getting that in WOW, and while I can find this kind of stuff in other MP games if I were that interested in such a thing, I would probably find myself in the same situation about as quickly as I would grow bored with a SP game. At that point it's time to move on, and on an individual level, MP and SP really have no advantages over each other in terms of play time on my part.
With companies focusing on MP, they're focusing on the greater user base, and not the individual player. The money they receive is primarily from a small subsection of the player base. The engagement is from an ongoing player base, and not completely from a huge community that plays endlessly. While I understand this from a business perspective, it's still not something that focuses on individual experiences as a whole, but rather how much money can be made by providing a game that can continuously keep people engaged and a constant influx of new players.
I prefer MP over SP all day every day. Why buy a 60$ SP game im done with in 10h if I can spend that 60$ and get a game I can play with my friends for a 1000h+ ? I GOTTA BE DAT XBOX FANBOYYYY
Yeah, Sonys best first Party game this gen is H1Z1, literally at 1500h+ in Just Survive and King of The Kill combined. Look, even sony can make good MP games.
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.
"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.
no thanks!
Thank God for Atlus
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.
Does this mean we'll see multiplayer in KH3