5 Reasons To Drop Online Multiplayer From Games


"Is it time to drop online multiplayer from game discs?

It’s no secret that I’m not big on online multiplayer games for reasons I’ve discussed before..

However, despite my stated bias I see dumping multiplayer from disc-based games as a possible benefit to both those who are fans of single player gaming and those who are online commando multiplayer junkies.

Here’s five of my reasons why it might be a good idea and work."

The story is too old to be commented.
gaminoz2966d ago

I wouldn't mind if online multi was downloadable myself if single player games got cheaper on disc...

vickers5002966d ago

That would be a great idea. I could just buy the MP in a game like CoD or Bad Company 2 and ignore the crap single player. And people who hate mp can just satisfy themselves with the sp mode.

XboxOZ3602966d ago

Question mate . .

WHy pass a decent enough comment, valid one as it is, yet "report" the article as "lame" . . . . you should know better, you've been here long enough, just like I have (2007 as well).

vickers5002966d ago

Because the title is retarted, and some of the points in it are as well.

From the title, he's suggesting that we drop multiplayer all together. Normally I would have reported it as misleading, but I disagree with some of the points in the article.

The notion of dropping all multiplayer from every single game is, as I put in the report, F'ng lame.

gaminoz2966d ago

Dropping what is essentially a separate component to make two components sold cheaper separately is lame? Besides that's an opinion and not a really a reason to report. The whole point of N4G is to argue over the ideas :)

Obviously it would only work with self-contained multis like COD or Halo and not co-ops.

vickers5002966d ago (Edited 2966d ago )

I disagree with that point in that it's too much to ask for/hope. I reported mainly for the title, which I should have changed to misleading, however; the title itself is lame also, so I felt the report deserved the lame title rather than the misleading title.

I don't mind that some people don't like multiplayer, I understand it's not THEIR particular thing. But I've been seeing a lot of hatred on this site towards anything that has multiplayer, and even some people suggesting doing away with it completely. The people that are trying to get it removed completely and are saying that it's worthless and inferior to single player as a fact, are the people that are pissing me off.

I don't have a problem with people complaining about it for INDIVIDUAL games, but when they say that sp is superior to mp as a fact (when in reality, that is purely opinion) and that there should be no multiplayer ever again (like the title of this article suggests), then that's where I have to report/reply to that bullcrap. Some of the most fun I have personally ever had was spending hours and hours with my friends late into the night playing something like gears, resistance 1, and call of duty 2, etc. (first time to ever try an online mode was cod2 and I loved it),and that's the reason why I (generally, not always) prefer mp to sp. The reason I say that, is to bring up the point that just because I prefer mp to sp in most situations, I do not go around in articles of games that don't have mp, and then say "(insert game here) sucks because it doesn't have mp" like sp gamers do with games that do include mp.

I was actually told to DIE for suggesting that a particular game should have multiplayer. Over a f*cking game suggestion, I was told to die.

But whatever, all I'm asking for is the courtesy of respect from my fellow gamers that happen to prefer sp to mp. I certainly do not go into articles and tell people how stupid they are for liking sp and certainly do not tell people to die for just having a different opinion than I do.

BadCircuit2966d ago

It won't happen that multi is 'axed' unless demand wasn't there. But having it separate does make sense.

People shouldn't bag you for liking multi either, and from what I read the article was saying it could be made better separately, not to get rid of it. I like both.

XboxOZ3602965d ago

I agree with you in regards to not forcing ones opinions down anothers throat, and being able to express one's self without the fear or reprisal is what freedom of speach is about.

But it is a sad fact that many ppl on such forums/boards do take the liberty to push and shove their thoughts on others.

Single Player games were the backbone of games from the origin of gaming, it still holds over 50% of the gaming public across all manner of styles of games, mobile, console, handheld, and in some cases, PC, but it is another kettle of fish.

Games are created for the single player experience to follow a storyline, and when it began, MP was simply an extension of that so that the game as such online, placed the player in similar roles.

Such as mentioned by another above in Split-screen, Co-op, Split Screen MP, Multiplayer with bots in the game, where others can drop in/out at will.

Some developers do manage to mix both SP and MP into their worlds, such as Red Dead Redemption's online mode. That works well.

Now MP has become the cash-cow for publishers to get as many miles from their games as possible, but at the expense of the SP aspect.

MP suits a style of gamer that usually has little interest in the actual storyline of the game, and the game is simply a vehicle to run-amuck on the net.

Both sides of a game are valid, both support different audiences, but with the push by publishers to now limit the amount of access YOU have to a game, especially those sold second-hand, there will come a time where Single Player and Multiplayer games have a distinct split.

Sony now supports the methods that Ubisoft, THQ, EA etc are using for their secondhand games, and will be following suit. SO gamers will be forced to by keys/code to play something that should be free with the game when purchased, new or secondhand.

vickers5002965d ago

"Now MP has become the cash-cow for publishers to get as many miles from their games as possible, but at the expense of the SP aspect."

I agree, but in my opinion, both multiplayer and single player are both equally important. I know others may not share that view, but I'd like to not be attacked for having that opinion. Whenever a game is announced that sounds interesting to me, if they announce it's single player only, or multiplayer only, or has both, it doesn't matter to me. If it has multiplayer, then awesome. If it doesn't, then that's fine as well, it doesn't affect my decision to purchase the game or not (unless it's a very short game).

The point is, it doesn't matter to me whether or not a game has multiplayer, though I certainly do prefer multiplayer, I have fun with both. My favorite game of all time is Bioshock 1, not even a multiplayer game. I do like single player, BUT, for me, a single player game must be f*cking amazing to me for me to prefer it to playing a mp game, and there are very little that I consider truly amazing. Obviously Bioshock is one of them, inFamous is one, Ratchet & Clank Tools of Destruction, Borderlands (I never played co op the first time through), and Fallout 3 are the only single player games this generation that I really thought were just amazing. There are a lot more games on the list if I just included awesome games, but I wont right now.

So I get WHY people are upset, and in most cases they have a right to be, but the fault lies mainly with the publishers or developers, not the fact that multiplayer is being added. The publishers shouldn't push developers to include multiplayer just because it might sell more, they should let the devs make what THEY want, and IF the publishers are going to force them to do multiplayer anyways, then they damn well better let them create their vision of the game they want FIRST, and then get on to adding a tacked on multiplayer (or good mp) to sell the copies better, they should not be forced to alter their vision of their game just because of potential sales.

"MP suits a style of gamer that usually has little interest in the actual storyline of the game, and the game is simply a vehicle to run-amuck on the net."

No argument there. But being an avid TV and movie watcher, whenever I play a games story mode and finish it, I am left largely unimpressed about 80% of the time. The MAJORITY of games stories these days kind of suck and are about as deep as an Indiana Jones or Die hard flick, and that's why I prefer multiplayer, is because these stories today are mostly unoriginal and boring. But if every game had a guaranteed amazing and deep story like Bioshocks (one that actually surprised me), I would take single player over multiplayer in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in today.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2965d ago
pippoppow2966d ago

How to price something like that. Some games are mostly about MP, others mostly about SP. There would have to be different prices sets. It would be too confusing.

I'd rather have as much of the game on disc anyways. I do not like to download too much stuff and fragmenting the game isn't appealing at all.

BadCircuit2966d ago (Edited 2966d ago )

There are only a few online multi games I'd play like Halo, Uncharted, AC Brotherhood, COD, so they'd be fine separate.

Tacked on multi modes just so the back of the box can say the game has it has annoyed me for years.

I'd rather a better single player experience than a crap multi tacked on. And the cheaper the better, so I'm all for it.

gaminoz2966d ago

Mind you co-op games that follow the story would be different...though Lara Croft did co-op well doing it online only on PSN and XBLA and making it a bit cheaper.

Personally I'd like to see more offline multi back with bots!

XboxOZ3602966d ago

Personally I do prefer Single Player games, and am totally against the rush to include MP into games that really do not require it, simply to fulfill a segment of the gaming audience that is not very supportive anyhow.

If game dev did offer the option, it would allow retailers to still sell the games secondhand without the need for developers to charge extra, which btw, SONY are now seriously considering for all their MP 1st Party titles - do a google on that, you'll find out what I mean.

There's nothing wrong with MP, but one should not be forced to do parts of games online simply to show stats for a publisher and have access to parts of a game that were once part of the overall game as a whole.

Now it seems they are bent on making the games reliant on every player haviung an internet connection, and being part of a paying subscription system in order to play either the full game, or segments of the game.

That's just wrong.

You do not get asked to do such things with movies or similar disc-based content, never have, never will. But game publishers seem to believe they have th right to do so.

I like the ideas put forward in the article, of btw, you do have to read it to get the full jist of it . . .not the first sentence than make an assumption of the article.

gaminoz2966d ago (Edited 2966d ago )

There's a big portion of gamers who don't want or can't be connected online all the time and to have to be so for a single player part of a game is stupid. So I hope that never happens.

Even with my iPod touch I want games I can play out and not be connected all the time but there are many apps that require internet connection for no real necessary reason.

XboxOZ3602966d ago

The figures have shown that 50 - 55% of game console owners do NOT play multiplayer games on a regular bases, and that 45% of them do not play MP games at all, and opt out of the Gamescores/trophies for the sections of games that require the MP or internet to achieve those achievements.

Which sort of speaks for its self really.

Also, a similar number of console purchasers do not play MP segments of the games at all, opting to simply play the career modes and then move to another game.

Again, that speaks for its self. But it does seem publishers are pushing developers to include or enhance online connection within games, and also build online MP aspects that really have very little, if anything to do with the game as a whole. Other than have the same title. They certainly have little to do with any of the storyline or aspects of the game as a whole.

Additionally, very few publishers allow developers to create SP DLC, almost all is based for MP side of the games . . . even additional maps that could be built into the game are not, same goes for load-outs etc. Only available for MP online play.

So the SP gamer misses out yet again. The world does not revolve around MP gaming, although, one would think that that is the case.

Immortal Kaim2966d ago

I think it would be awesome if games were cheaper if they don't have multiplayer option, its not like a play most of them anyway.

Show all comments (41)
The story is too old to be commented.