Blizzard is already enabling millions of fans to create stories for their favorite heroes.
I do agree that not every game needs to have a single player experience however when it comes to storytelling I don't believe one is actually better than the other but just a different avenue. To say that story can't be open to interpretation due to it being in a campaign is a bit far fetched in my opinion because the same can be done if the great degree of writing and direction is applied to it (Great examples are Silent Hill or OFF). In the end, it's pricing that tends to make or break multiplayer only titles because very rare do companies deliver content worth what they are asking. Then there is the fear of servers being closed too, dealing with cheaters and the like however these cons does not make single player the better half. They are both different flavors, how great they taste are based on the developers themselves.
We will always need A single player mode , cause not all of us want to play with people or in groups . Besides you can't play a MP when the internet is down and a game without a SP is not worth buying .
No, you're seeing that wrong, you only want single player games, doesn't mean every game should have single player.
Any game that wants to earn any money from me or people like me needs to have single player. Period. No single player is a choice to forfeit a market. This recent trend of lying to that market by saying there's single player or a campaign when there really isn't is very short-sighted because it breeds distrust and gets companies boycotted. Respawn, Microsoft, Bungie blacklisted. EA, Dice, thin ice.
@Brian Not every game is for everyone, tastes differ, there's always something in certain games that can make people turn off of it, just see this as one of those reasons and move along... Not every game needs SP AND MP both, it's silly to even want that. A game like COD or Battlefield don't need SP they are made because people who buy them want to play the MP part, why would they need to add SP to that? People who mainly play SP games suddenly don't get it then and if they do, they get it for the wrong reasons... Also, with what game have publishers flat out lied that there was SP and turned out there wasn't? I honestly never seen that...
I agree. Some games are built from the ground up as a MP only and some as SP only and I'm good with that. I don't suggest or think that all games should be made for all players. I'm just pointing out that the value of my money, as someone who detests MP, is the same as anyone else' and the only way to get it is to provide a narrative single player experience. Deliberately making a game without a single player campaign is the same as saying that my money is of no interest. CoD is a bad example. I have every one on my game shelf and every one has had a campaign. Battlefield is also a bad example. I've got 5 of them that have had campaigns. When Titanfall came out, I bought it for the 360 on day one after hearing from multiple sources (including the dev reps) that it had a campaign. I popped the disc in and found out I was expected to purchase an xbox live gold membership to play. Why? Because I had been bold faced LIED to -the game was online only, multiplayer only and NO campaign. I brought the game back to the shop the next day, but was only able to get half my cash back on a trade in because it had been opened. Battlefront is another example of lies. I played the original Battlefronts on the original Xbox -great well rounded games. This one however... zero story and a few training missions does in no way translate to single player gameplay. Same with Rainbow Six: Siege -more lies. Destiny, Division and Need For Speed -all online only, going on about their single player experiences -more bullsh*t. With Destiny there was a modicum of truth to it BUT I had to use a time-reset workaround to be able to solo the strikes because if Bungie had their way, I'd have been locked out of them altogether like I am from completing the Vault Of Glass. And I have also heard that there's no way to really complete The Division or NFS without forced MP.
Nothing against multi-player, but single mode is always the best.
Then you skip the MP only games... Am sure you skip other games for other reasons as well, don't believe you buy and play every game out there...
that's an opinion though... I prefer MP, i'd rather my MP games didn't have a tacked on SP. Battlefield for example.
I'm a single-player devotee, but I agree with the author on this one because Overwatch finally drew me into a multiplayer game. The beta was just too good, I'm a fan! And in the meantime, Doom's SP campaign is amazing, so I'm getting my fast-paced 90s-esque shooter campaign on the side.
the followup article should be titled "why games don't always need a full game price tag"
what makes me laugh is how people are happy to fork out £50 for a 8 hour long SP game but won't for a high replay value MP only title... Sorry but this just makes 0 sense to me, as a MP gamer I buy a lot of the MP only titles that come out because I prefer MP games. However I do enjoy the SP games that are focused SP games with solid stories. And how adding a SP game to a MP game suddenly makes the game worth it such as Battlefield and now Titanfall 2. Overwatch to me is far more worth the full retail price compared to something like The order or Wolfenstein.
better than a 60/80$ MP only game were you play the same 3 maps and call it a "high replay value" than a SP game that you can do the same and replay for different difficulty/collectible/ending etc. specially when you pay more for one extra map/gun/skin.
I don't know many SP games that are worth going through twice+. Maybe play them again a year or so later but people dont tend to play the game through again straight after they finish it. MP games have the highest replay value out of any other game... There is a reason the top 10 most played games are pretty much all MP or MP focused games and I don't see a single SP game that has millions of people still playing it after 10 years.
"top 10 most played games are pretty much all MP or MP focused" yet many of those games hardly have many content, i mean look at star wars battlefront it has less contents and you need to pay like 50$ or more to get the rest and play with other people, also look at games like Ratchet & Clank and Batman arkham series both are SP games that was add with multiplayer and hardly anyone played when it has "high replay value" because single player experience seems more enjoyable, also MP games is more easier to make than SP .
I totally agree man. Im a mp gamer and we are obviously outnumbered on this site (but player-count speaks for itself). With multiplayer-only games YOU are the creator of the story line! With Ark:survival evolved we have tribe raids, alliances, stabbing people in the back, establishing friendships, trading, etc. interacting with REAL unpredictable people, unlike terrible AI you find in many games' single player mode. Same can be said with sea of thieves. Imagine the possibilities of creating your own allies, enemies, and explorations. Multiplayer games offer hundreds of hours of endless unpredictable gameplay. Id rather pay $60 for a mp only game than a $60 sp only game (there are of course exceptions for that case).
I actually wait for SP games to drop in value because in my opinion they aren't worth the full price. I will buy a MP only game at full though because I will play it and I will get a good amount of hours out of it. I tend to get much more played hours in MP games because I rarely play SP games through twice.
If there is only multiplayer then it should be priced accordingly. Some games do it right but some just don't get it. Star Wars Battlefront was a bloated cash grab with no staying power. I didn't even buy it when it was on sale for 50% off online digital. When other games have multiplayer and single player in their game and their multiplayer is deeper than your stand alone multiplayer game there will be back lash. If you take a beloved series' name you better come with more than just pretty graphics and give players all the modes that have been common staples for years. There are some genres that just aren't worth the $60 price tag. One on One fighters like Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter. Sure you could get away with it in the 90s because those consoles were getting pushed to their limits and having arcade experiences at home were what people were paying for. Now gaming is beyond that. I'm not plunking down $60 for a one on one fighter...tekken, virtua fighter, soul calibur....etc these games are great but now that consoles have basically out paced the arcades these games should be 20-30 bucks at the most. Same goes for shallow online only experiences. Destiny and Titanfall should have been 20-30 bucks. There's not enough meat to these games to warrant such high prices. Then they want to sell you maps, skins, and other modes later? Come on! If the game wasn't 60 bucks in the first place I might have considered it if the core game was actually any good. If it's online only companies may want to go with the free to play model. That way you can charge your players for content that they actually might play. Gears of War 3 did it right. You get a good single player. You get a deep online multiplayer. You can choose to download extra maps, skins, etc. But if you choose not to you can still play online with the "no dlc" section. Also if you don't have internet you can still enjoy the multiplayer with friends and bots. No one was left out in the cold. Not like these releases lately.
"priced accordingly"? Indeed, it should be priced accordingly to how much time and effort the developers put in it, not how much you think it's worth. You are downright naive if you believe MP only games should be priced lower, I don't know what you do for a living but what if people feel your work is not up to their liking and feel you deserve to paid half of what you make now? Does that sound fair to you? When do people realise game development costs money?
If you read the entire comment you'd see that if it's done right I'll gladly pay. But Destiny, Starwars Battlefront, Street Fighter 5, and Titanfall are not worth their asking price in my opinion. They all lack features that I think were left out to meet deadlines...movie release/xmas/etc... Look, when I buy a game, I'd like to be able to revisit my $60 purchase after the servers are shut down. Gears 3 as an example includes bots for every mode. Also includes system link and split screen. It's worth the price of admission. These should be standard inclusions. Gamers today are too willing to throw their money away on temporary experiences and big companies are glad to shovel it out year after year. Look at Madden Ultimate Team. You invest time and money into a team you can't use in the next year's edition. It's everything wrong with the industry right now. Eventually gamers will smarten up and stop buying into the rental service games are becoming.
Not every game needs single player but every game does need some porno.
Doom begs to differ.
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.