This post is not to slam multiplayer, but to ask if others think it is as large a component of sales and longevity of games as some seem to think.
I am a single player person. I like playing games by myself. Even when I played with on my PS360, I played alone.
I play by myself because (I'll list a couple of internal reasons):
-I play for fun, not for bragging rights. Maybe I'm weird, but having the highest score (or whatever the equivalent of that is today-achievements, stickers, leaderboards, etc) means nothing to me. I would not even feel a sense of accomplishment if I were the best at Need for Speed for a day. I'd say 'cool' and that would be that.
-I don't have a large social circle. Again, I may be the outlier, but I don't tweet, I don't FB, etc. I have a number of people that I associate with that I would call acquaintances, but not friends. Now, I know you can play with acquaintances and not just friends , but many of the people that associate with do not play games or are not interested in the kinds of games that I enjoy.
I also play by myself because (a few external reasons)-
-Griefers.
-Cheaters.
-People who yell, curse, are sexist, racist, are rude.
I totally get wanting to enjoy yourself with others. I do. I know that many of the external reasons can be ameliorated by choosing the people that you play with carefully and that many feel that this makes the gaming experience better.
But my real question is this: how many games are really made better by having both a single player mode and a multiplayer mode? Excluding MMOs, are there any games who's expected 'life cycle' was extended by multiplayer alone (yes, I am making a logical jump here by equating 'better' with 'life cycle extension' but I figure that great games are played for a longer time than one trick ponies...but I may be wrong with that assumption)?
Multiplayer may lead to more sales; I don't know. But I think that it is mod-ability that leads to longevity (CounterStrike, L4D, FO, Skyrim, Civ, etc).
Aside from what I listed in my initial paragraphs, I dislike the idea that if the server goes, your multiplayer game goes bye bye (but I understand the business reasons for that decision). I know there is LAN and PBEM (are there any other ways?), but it seems like the day that Origin decides to shut down the BF4 servers (thanks Hawaa ), your options for playing with friends becomes very limited.
Looking at the top ten most played games on Steam (that was the only place I could find a listing of the top games being played), only two of them do not allow the player to mod the game and one of them, PayDay 2, was released on 8/13/2013, so it is still a novel game (the other was Football Manager 2013). Perhaps it is the combination of multiplayer and mods that maintains those games on the top ten list.
I guess what I am wondering is if, after stellar gameplay, it is multiplayer that really makes a base single player game better/gives it a longer life or if it is the ability of the game to be modded or a combination of both (and if so, what is the weighting of that combination)?
Well, I too don't get why there is often an over emphasis of multiplayer in games. I don't like playing online. My gaming life hasn't been diminished by it. I do have a problem when an online feature somehow causes other features (like single player) to be diminished.I don't like MMOs. I have tried to play more than a few, but they don't quite mesh right with me. I don't play at the same speed as others (my speed tends to vary), so it is possible for me to miss a group event because I felt like taking a week off (they would not be able to contact me to tell me to get back on), or I annoy people because I've leveled up way beyond them because one night I decided I didn't need sleep. I don't like the subscription method for MMOs, it feels like it is now kinda like a job because if I don't play lots then I'm wasting money.In many ways, I like being able to play my games at my convenience. I very much feel that I should be able to pause a game at any point in time and resume it later. Failing that, at least make the save points frequent and the levels short. I may for instance one night play GalCiv 2 for half an hour, while another night I might play it for 4 hours strait.
Payday 2 is also MP COOP-only. I believe your post is more applicable to MP ADVERSARIAL gameplay. MP COOP has always been a somewhat different animal (in my opinion) and especially with games such as Payday (and now Payday 2) the payoff there is being able to play the same missions again and again in a multitude of different ways while having to rely on your buds for support. In games such as the COD or BF series for example it is most often about kill totals and streaks rather than actual team cooperation.
I felt the same for the longest time. Recently I have begun playing on ICO with Sacrifice of Angels 2 enthusiasts. The game is totally different when you play against other human beings. I understand you're misgivings because they were also mine. It also helps to be a little giving of yourself. In your time and knowledge and experience as well. Like any human to human interaction there is give and take. Having friends can sometimes be work but friendships have emergent properties. Look for us on SOA2 we'll treat you right. Roll the dice.
backs out of the room slowly...
. I am a poor writer .
My initial post was not about why I don't like multiplayer; it was about why people think that multiplayer will lead to greater sales as opposed to modding. I see it as modding>>>multiplayer, especially when it comes to the longevity of a game.
For those who want multiplayer over everything else, I am asking why, when it makes their fun so dependent upon others as opposed to modding.
While I grew up playing single-player games and some of those same games are still among the best and most favourite, there is no denying that I have had MORE fun playing multi-player (to be specific multi-player COOP games). I do agree that MP ADVERSARIAL games are rife with cheating and/or griefing, in fact so much so that it absolutely does rob one of added enjoyment one should be able to get by playing a game with others.
MP COOP however is where it is at (at least for me). Nothing, and mean no MOD, no expansion, no amount of SP glitz/glamour can ever replace those crazy intense moments when playing a game meant to be played COOP (ie. PAYDAY, PAYDAY2, LFD, LFD2) with a couple of buds and yelling into voip.... "...DUDE.......we need help here now.........damn....we're losing this hallway......get the f43%#$% over here.......look out behind you!.....ahh......too late!....."
Once you have tasted that kind of intensity (and reward when the mission actually doesn't fail sometimes) it can never be replicated for me in any game in single-player. For that reason.....MP (sometimes even the shittier adversarial kind) does take the cake for me. These days, if a game doesn't offer MP......it is more than likely a no-buy for me......even just based on that fact alone.
Best advice for video-gaming fun I have? Find a solid gaming community/clan and hang on for the ride. When you're with a good group of people you move from game to game with the group (always have someone to play with) and your fun absolutely is dependent on the people not the game. Exactly how it should be!
Personally, I feel that single-player just doesn't get the attention it deserves. It doesn't have to be this solitary, lonely experience if you can optionally share a screenshot or clip from your latest game, with a little blurb underneath from you. I love seeing screenshots on Steam community hubs.
Multiplayer may get the adrenaline going for a bit, but I don't mind telling you that sometimes it can get exhausting trailing after four other dudes in search of loot, XP, or whatever else it is that people want out of their multiplayer gaming. Don't even get me started on the grief I have with the archaic need/greed/pass system which should be taken out back and shot before it hurts someone else's brain.
To me it varies greatly from game to game. Some games were built to be played in multiplayer, and they pull it off well. I don't mean it has a "good multiplayer feature", I mean the game was designed for it from the ground up. L4D is a perfect example, very poor single player but great MP. But a great MP experience isn't just reserved for FPS games; 4x TBS games as well - Dominions 3, Endless Space. And RTS games - Starcraft, AI Wars.
So ultimately I don't think it comes down to genre. I think any game can have a great SP and / or a great MP experience. They just have to be built for it. I can personally enjoy either experience if it's great. I think I prefer multiplayer though. My most played games (measured by in-game time) in my life are World of Warcraft, L4D2, TF2 and Natural Selection 2. I can just get so much more out of those products than I can of a game with SP, both fun- and time-wise. But that's me. I have friends who have clocked 1000+ hours playing Crusader Kings 2, Civ5 or Total War: Rome.
I believe multiplayer leads to greater sales than modding since I believe that a whole lot more people prefer multiplayer than to mod.
Of all the people who buy a game, some will play online but VERY few will ever mod it (more will download mods though).
When I was a kid with the NES and SNES, I can't recall having a preference. It was about how good the game was.
Today, it's still about how good the game is but some games are just SO much better in multiplayer. When you're figthing another human being there is so much intensity and excitement since you KNOW that whoever is fastest or knows the most about the game, will win.
I think for TBS you need modding to make MP successful. Modding is needed sometimes to fix MP exploits.
See the AOW:SM 1.4 patches.
multiplayer is almost necessary in any symmetric game
that's a large chunk of games...
Again, how do you know that? The games that I see that last forever (CounterStrike, NeverWinter Nights, Baldur's Gate) do have multiplayer, but also have modding. How can you be sure in your assertion that multiplayer is 'almost necessary in any symmetric game'? In what way is it necessary?
The TES series has been around forever and it doesn't need multiplayer.
Again, this is not a 'all multiplayer games are dumb' thread. I am just curious to know why/how multiplayer makes a game better/remain popular longer than modding.
It's not either or, it never has been. You can make a great title with SP modding, and you can make a great title with MP, and you can make a great title with MP modding. Stardock chose to go for SP modding because it was the best use of their resources.
I believe Stardock at one point said something along the lines of them spending 40% of their coding hours for multiplayer in E:wom, and the result? The Multiplayer bit was horribly underdeveloped (no quests, no tactical combat, laggy servers and so on) and very few people who bought the 4X TBS game E:Wom ever even tested multiplayer. (Yes, run-on sentence, sue me)
NWN / BG / TES are not symmetrical games, at least not in the single player mode
CS is very symmetrical
almost every symmetric game is going to be boring to play against bots. they aren't a substitute for humans
there are some symmetrical games that are popular without multiplayer, but they aren't very good. They only provide entertainment for people who don't know how to play (eg. Civilization series). The only way they entertain decent players is by adding asymmetry (eg. diety level)
as for modding, relatively few people care. successful moddable games are usually fun and popular before mods anyways
league of legends and dota are played by more people than every game you can think of combined. good luck modding that
You are saying there are currently more people playing Dota2 and LoL than every other game combined? I'd like to see you back that up. Including consoles, "social media / facebook" games and online gambling, I seriously doubt Dota2 and LoL comes even close to that. I mean, dota2 right now has 400k players online, and there are 400k other players online on steam's top 15 played games list, so that's dota2 out of the way.
LoL probably has 10 times the amount of players dota2 has. But I would say there are probably more than 4 million players online right now on:
1) consoles
2) handheld devices
3) online gambling
4) facebook games
5) all the pc MMO games
and let's not forget
6) every other single player game for PC
Dota2 and LoL are immensely succesful, but personally I would guess they probably have less than 10% of the world's currently playing players.
Dota 2 is the perma #1 played game on Steam, typically with 3-500,000 players. These numbers don't even track Chinese players of the game (where it is wildly popular but doesn't use the Steam client) so it will easily be close to 1 million players at any given time. This is more than all the other games on the Steam stats lists combined. LoL has even more players I believe. Mods help extend the life of SP games (like Skyrim) and some MP games (various Source ones) but like it or not, MP itself (or F2P MP to be more specific) is currently what draws the most players. Personally I think it's silly to compare these in terms of value for the player though - I'm glad that there are options as I enjoy competitive MP but also like to change gears and get immersed in something SP as well.
I'm not trying to compare the two per se; again I am doing a horrible job of explaining myself .
Here is what I see-
Dev-"We are creating a new game that we think everyone will love for a long time".
Potential customer-"Is there mulitplayer? If there is no multiplayer, then there is no sale. Multiplayer in games garner more sales and is needed these days. I and all my friends only play multiplayer games.".
Dev-"Ok...we will add it since the community seems to be clamoring for it".
One year later, servers are down and no one plays anymore because they have moved on to the next game and all the game had to offer for novelty/keeping the game fresh was mulitplayer.
My poorly worded inquiry is asking if multiplayer really boosts sales/increases game life as opposed to something like modding (or any other feature, but I like moddable games, which is why I am asking about modding versus multiplayer). Is it really the end all be all feature that a game needs to succeed?
I know it was in beta for a while, but it seems like DotA was released on 7/9/2013. I would be interested to see if it still has 500,000 players a year from now.
I would be surprised if it wasn't double that. These MOBA type games are growing like mushrooms, and there's no telling where their roof is. Even small-time games like SMITE are reporting continuous growth. Dota2 is backed by the wealthiest PC game retailer in the world, and they have shown serious conmmitment to the product.
Well, it wasn't so much that your question was worded poorly, it's just that the answer to your question (is the MP component worth it for longevity of the game vs. the modding component?) will likely be different for every game - for some yes, for others, no. For MP it's mainly about good balance, good population, fun, and enough new content to keep people interested over the years in order to keep it going. It's also a matter of the devs/publisher knowing what their community wants for the game, what % might play MP, if they have the funds or interest to support MP long term, etc.
Boost sales will usually win out over increases game life as the latter doesn't really translate into significant additional sales.
modding probably isn't going to make a game popular, but it will prolong the life of a popular game
there are exceptions like Minecraft or Little Big Planet, but I don't even consider content creation to be "modding" in those games because it's kind of the entire point
multiplayer can actually make a game popular
that isn't to say multiplayer belongs in every game and modding belongs in no games. it obviously depends on the game design
It depends on the game. Modding made Oblivion hugely successful, it's a shit game in it's vanilla form(Sorry Bethesda, but it's true...).
The engine, while beautiful came stock with some of the ugliest people textures to ever grace a video game. Not just low quality, but so fucking ugly that you flinch when you see the local tramp. People sleep with that? Ew...
I'm sure it would have made a profit without it, but almost no one would be playing that dog today, instead it's got a healthy modding community.
Half-life on the other hand, you mention mods from it, but who'd have made mods if it wasn't multiplayer? Counter-Strike, Team Fortress, Day Of Defeat, Natural Selection, the list goes on. Immensely popular games in themselves, that used objective based multiplayer to make an awesome game out of one of the more boring multiplayer shooters of it's day.
Mods are important to the resounding success of quite a few platforms, but there are plenty of games that are successful because they're interesting in themselves. For many games, that means they have multiplayer. It takes either a very deep game, or a PVE design, for a game to be enjoyable long term as a single player system. When there isn't a lot of thinking involved, you've got to put it up against other people unless it's something like breakout, and those are just time killers.
There are people that enjoy playing the same campaign a dozen times over of course... Nothing wrong with it, I'd just rather watch a good movie or read a good book than go through what is typically a vastly inferior plot line more than once.
I think modding can only work when it is seamlessly integrated into the game. There aren't many RTS games that include modding seamlessly, therefore modding is not important for RTS games - in general at least.
An RTS game should offer a few hours of good single-player experience, after all that's how players usually start. If the single-player isn't good enough, most people won't bother to look at the multiplayer part or at mods.
The multiplayer community is usually extremely small when compared to how many people buy the game. I don't know why this is, maybe most people just play the game for a few hours in single-player mode and then get bored by it. Or maybe it's because they don't like online gaming...
Therefore I think that in general the single-player experience is extremely important and outweighs all other aspects of most RTS games (unless they are specifically designed otherwise).
I'll use the recent Company of Heroes 2 as an example here. According to Sega, the publisher, they sold about 380,000 copies in the opening week. That was back at the end of June. Nowadays, there are about 5,000 that are regularly on Steam playing it. I'll assume for simplicity that they are all playing MP as most finish the SP campaign in the first week. So that's about 1.3% playing MP. Not very high. However, that 1.3% has much more effect on a game's marketing presence than a similar number of SP people who play for a week and then drop the game. That 1.3% continues to play the game for months and even years to come. The original Company of Heroes still had 6,000 people online playing 5-6 years after release. This small MP contingent keeps forums active with discussion and replays, participates in tournaments, livestreams the game on Twitch, and purchases DLC and expansions. This all reverberates into keeping an online presence for the game that continues to attract new players in the years ahead. Mods don't have the same effect or reach in RTS at least. This is why for RTS games, the devs/publishers invest in MP even though they know only a small percentage of total sales play it.
I don't know how typical I am, but I would never buy an RTS if it had no MP. The SP is a side attraction that I don't have huge expectations for but am sometimes pleasantly surprised. For turn-based strategy though I'm the complete opposite - I don't care about MP and am only interested in playing it solo - so in that case mods could interest me more. SOASE is pretty unique in sitting somewhere in between those two but I mainly consider it an RTS.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
