Multiplayer-Only Games Are No Different Than Singleplayer-Only Games

MR BLACKMAGIK writes, "Don’t you hate it when an awesome game gets announced, but then details come out saying it’s singleplayer only? What a bunch of bullshit. It’s 2016 and developers are still making games that don’t have multiplayer?!

Why is it that you never hear anything like that? Why is it that multiplayer-only games constantly get criticized for not having a singleplayer, yet singleplayer-only games rarely get criticized for not have multiplayer?"

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
JRPG-FAN1998d ago

Exactly, infact multiplayer games should cost more because they have longetivity.

Im buying quantum break and uncharted 4, but both of those games i will finish and forget within a week. But when titanfall first released i was playing it for months so i got more of my moneys worth with titanfall then what i know i will get for playing quantum break and uncharted.

My opinion could be different to yours, some people prefer single player, some people prefer multiplater. I personally prefer multiplayer games, single player games just bore me unless the story is AMAZING. Ark survival evolved is amazing fun and you have the biggest laugh with your tribe whereas if it was single player i probably wouldve been bored after one day.

Aloy-Boyfriend1998d ago (Edited 1998d ago )

uncharted 4 has multiplayer. the value is there, but you choosing not to play it is up to you.

Anyways, It all depends of the kind of gamer you are: Competitive or not. In my case Multiplayer only games have no place in my library. Never will!

The only MP game I've had was Titanfall which I bought an Xbox One for (also for Sunset Overdrive). It was addictive and I enjoyed it a lot, but after 2 months of almost playing it daily it just got repetitive and tiring. Also resetting my progress after upgrading to the next gen turned me off big time. No wonder I saw people stuck at gen 5 or lower all the time. it was a waste! MP games can become repetitive too.

My problem with MP only games is that I'm not that much of a competitive gamer. I play MP games with friends and random players for a while, but that's it. I don't take it serious. I play games to enjoy myself. When I come from work, college, or I have some time off, I just want to sit and relax playing some goddamn games at my pace. With MP only games, you are dependent of internet connection, online players, annoying brats in your team, and so on. It may be stressful at times

Single player has always been the meat of video games, while Multiplayer was the added bonus. When I see devs not able to make a good SP campaigns in scifi games like Battlefront, Evolve, and Titanfall it just makes me face palm at the wasted potential. This MP only trend is scary because it will disrupt gamers' free time like me. Not only that, but also looks like the easy route to decrease budget and release a game faster, or just be lazy for devs. Plus, the microtransactions they include... There's too much at risk with this trend.

I don't need MP mode to replay games. I tend to replay my SP games at least twice a year while waiting for new releases or a sequel. MP only games may be longer, but hell they can become tiring and repetitive too, especially MP games devoid of content, which is another big problem with this trend.

XisThatKid1998d ago

I've always felt that just because a game is MP only should be seen as a "lesser" game just because it doesn't a single player. I gauge my games and money on how much fun I have with it especial in a certain amount of time but not limited to. All games have at least one thing in common, fun.
As long as the content is there for any game I think a price can be justified.

ifistbrowni1998d ago (Edited 1998d ago )

The game types are totally different.

Always online multiplayer DEPENDS on the community. If you're the only one who buys the game (unlikely) then you have nothing to play. If the servers are down, you have nothing to play. If you have no xbox live/ps+, you have nothing to play. If the game is months old, players move on, and you'll have nothing to play or a slow matchmaking.

Singleplayer games DEPEND on your free-time. If you're the only one who buys the game (unlikely) then you can still play. If the servers are down, you cans till play. If you don't have Xbox live/ps+, you can still play. If the game is months old, players move on but you can still play.

Single Player games > Multiplayer only games

Single player + Multiplayer > most single player games > all multiplayer only games.

Don't get me wrong. I've bought into plenty of multiplayer shooters this gen (Titanfall, Evolve, Destiny, Rainbow Six, Battlefront), but they all only provide *maybe* 12-15 hours of gameplay before I'm totally bored. Destiny was the only game that left a lasting impression, but I only played PvE and rarely played PvP.

Thatguy-3101998d ago

Funny thing is that most multi-player games that have releases recently flame out pretty quick which I find ironic.

JRPG-FAN1998d ago

not really

Titanfall was playable for months i played it for 3 months straigh and go back from time to time. Been playing ki since then almost every day. Rocket league is still played by heaps of people so is forza horizon 2. Halo 5 released in october and is still going ham. Multiplayer games have legs and theyre worth the money.

WellyUK1998d ago

The issue with MP only games is they seem to not have enough content for a MP only game especially when compared to Battlefield and CoD which have massive content for MP and have a SP campaign even though the SP on both games is terrible but it still has it.

Now if Titanfall 2 launches with 2x the content of these other games then it will have a player base for a long time and will be worth the full price that they ask for.

They do die out quick but games like The Order died within a week because of how short it was, content for the price is the issue with BOTH sides of the coin as in no way is The order worth full price at launch and neither was Evolve.

Amazes me how people don't see it for both SP and MP games, MP get all the brunt of the force for low content yet a lot of SP games also have very small amount of content as well.

Goldby1998d ago (Edited 1998d ago )


Titanfall was a failure, otherwise they wouldnt be making noise about how Titan Fall two is going to have a single player campaign. it also failed because it was an xbox exclusive which cut the potential players in half if not more.

Rocket League, since when was that Multiplayer only? theres a single player offline mode. so that point is moot. im not sure about Forza Horizon, if its strictly online, i assume its something similiar to a Need for Speed game in that if you are connected to the servers, you are good to go online, if not, its just single player. Halo 5 isnt Multiplayer only. yes it has MP but is also has a shitty campaign/ the discussion isnt if multiplayer games are better than single player games, its is Mulitplayer only games (Titan Fall, Evolve -sorta-) are better than single player only games (AC syndicate, Fallout, Journey)

and as for your earlier comment about longevity so it should cost more, i've been playing Journey almost every weekend, even though its only a 2 hour game, since release (on ps3 then ps4) so does that mean i need to pay 1000 dollars for the game. the Cost of the game has nothing to do with longevity for AAA publishers. its about cost to build the game, including staff, servers, and the such. indie games tend to follow that pattern as most cost tend to be less than a AAA

MP focused games dont tend to put enough "end game" content in it, similiar to destiny, but also in the sense of games like Evolve and Titan Fall, theres only soo much you can do, and difficulty is only based on other players, aka if your nuymber one, no one is better than you.

SP focused games, take the exact same amount of money, but put it into their product through story, details and lore, character designs and such. plus if you've beaten the game, theres a harder difficulty, and after that, and even harder difficulty.

last note. i find it funny that a guy whose name is JRPG-FAN (jrpgs tend to mostly be single player) is defending multiplayer only games.

rocketpanda1998d ago

You can get lost with that logic. X amount of hours doesn't equal how much a game should cost.

ninsigma1998d ago

Definitely right. If that were the case all games would be like 50 hours long. Who wants that??

Dark_Crow1998d ago

Yea cuz imagine how much Tetris would cost or angry birds.

Goldby1998d ago


The initial load ups for Just Cause and Bloodborne would have broken my bank

Dark_Crow1998d ago

It's not about money's worth.

It's about memorable experiences. I remember single player campaigns a lot more fondly then say my beta time with battlefront. Or counter strike.

Multiplayer only games are easier to make therefore cheaper.

What is unacceptable is the same price for a multiplayer only game as a game with both multiplayer and single player.

The problem is not in the making of a multiplayer only game..the problem lies in the pricing, season passes, and reasons as to why no single player.

ifistbrowni1998d ago

Season passes in multiplayer only games are ridiculous. You already charged me double the price for half a game (sometimes arguably less), but now you want me to spend $30 (Siege), $20 (Evolve), $50 (Battlefront), $100+ (Destiny).

The most laughable is Battlefront. The game is beautiful, kinda fun and very casual but it lacks so much content that it should be an embarrassment to EA. But they said, "hell nah," give us $60 for the game and $50 for the season pass.

Gazondaily1998d ago

Each to their own. I have far more memorable moments playing games online than SP games.

Somebody1998d ago

Longevity? For games that are dependent on the number of consistent players to keep the servers up and running?

Demanding singleplayer campaigns or portions to a game is akin to console fans sticking to their preference to physical copies. Console fans used to despise digital distribution seen on Steam and one of the reasons they gave is that their physical copies can still played well into the future whereas Steam games can easily pulled off the servers for numerous reasons like expired music rights. Well, they were partly right and we should all apply that concern to the newer games. It's becoming apparent that newer multiplayer games seem to be designed to have very limited shelf life compared to older ones. We still see old games being played with since they have bots. I can still fire up any of Unreal games until Unreal 3 and waste some time on my own blasting the AI bots around but I don't think I can do the same for the next Unreal.

The simplest and cheapest way for devs and publishers to allay that fear/demand is to add AI bots to their games but they won't because they need fans to move on to their game in the series and the DLC/micro-transanction cycle all over again.

jb2271998d ago

The entire argument about "replayability" is completely subjective. Sure, you could sink hundreds of hours into an mp mode but what is keeping anyone from sinking hundreds of hours into replaying sp campaigns?

The actual fair comparison to make is to find out how much time it would take to play a single match in each map & mode. That is an mp only games "length"...however long you choose to replay those maps & modes is absolutely irrelevant because it's entirely subjective.

If you can forget long awaited games like QB & UC4 w/in a week then maybe sp gaming isn't for you, and that is fine. For every person w/ your opinion on sp games there is someone else w/ the same opinion regarding mp games.

I think the main big reason why there is some merit to mp only games being cheaper is the playerbase & server status. I can buy a $60 sp game & play it for as long as I have a system, but there's a very real possibility of an mp only game having its community dry up w/in a few months & its servers shut off entirely in the future, making it essentially worthless. Regardless of whether we've seen it happen yet, there is at least the possibility of mp only games becoming $60 glorified rentals.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1998d ago
PhoenixUp1998d ago

You aren't required to stay connected to the internet to play a single player game.

These two situations are entirely different factors.

BrandanT1998d ago

*cough cough* Paying to use servers. *cough* Season pass. *cough* online only.

ifistbrowni1998d ago

Assuming you buy at launch:

Multiplayer game: $60
Online access for a month (provider): $50+ (U.S. comcast)
Year of PS+ or Xbox Live: $50 or $60, can even substitute this for a month $9.99

Assuming you buy at launch:

Single player game: $60.

Yeah, they are not different at all /sarcasm.

Rookie_Monster1998d ago

Multiplayer only games like Titanfall can be played online for many months and years and competing against new players online and every match is different....while Single player only games like The Order 1886 is one and done. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Unless we are talking about games like the Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 where there are 100 of hours. It all depends on what type of Single player games we are talking about.

Paytaa1998d ago

Pretty much why I'm on the "Titanfall doesn't need a campaign" side of the fence.

UltraNova1998d ago

Titanfall had better have more of Multiplayer to justify its full price, then I'd be on the same side of the fence as you.

WellyUK1998d ago

Same here i'm one of the people who thought Titanfall was one of the best shooters in years even with the lack of content.

Volkama1998d ago

In 10 years time The Order will be more fun than Titanfall.

I'm happy to buy multiplayer only games, or single player only, or whatever the dev has a passion to make. But I can understand why people see more value in single player, as it's only the exceptional multiplayer games that hold a population to play with.

Christopher1998d ago

Only MP only games I'm interested in are RPG focused ones. But, I definitely can see how tons of people want FPS MP only games. But, looking at Destiny and The Division, I think there is a massive draw to at least have MP only games that are not just PvP.

Mrveryodd1998d ago

Hear of a thing called lag ..

Christopher1998d ago

I WISH I could say that :P

But, honestly, lag is so much not as big of a deal as it was five years ago let alone even longer ago. Sure, it still happens, but the 99% of the time that it doesn't happen...

maniacmayhem1997d ago

Okay, maybe I exaggerated a bit with the whole 1998 line.

But like you said, lag in the last few years has become such a non issue. When I have had issues of lag it was usually something on my end or something that was fixed within the hour.

Show all comments (48)
The story is too old to be commented.