250 réponses à ce sujet

[colossus50000]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Do they need multiplay? No.

Can they have multiplay as an option for those that enjoy it? Yes, as long as it does not detract from the single play experience.

That's what were going to prove.

I'll believe when I see it.

[Ghost-621]

CannonLars wrote...

Nope. Deus Ex? BioShock: Infinite? Skyrim? Arkham City?

Are any of these companies slaves to EA? Nope. They actually have freedom from "Herp derp please casuals derp!"

It's tacked on. I know it's tacked on. You know it's tacked on. EA and Bioware knows it's tacked on.

[aridor1570]

Ghost-621 wrote...

CannonLars wrote...

Nope. Deus Ex? BioShock: Infinite? Skyrim? Arkham City?

Are any of these companies slaves to EA? Nope. They actually have freedom from "Herp derp please casuals derp!"

It's tacked on. I know it's tacked on. You know it's tacked on. EA and Bioware knows it's tacked on.

It's not tacket on when the executive producer planned it ever since the first game.

[Iakus]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Do they need multiplay? No.

Can they have multiplay as an option for those that enjoy it? Yes, as long as it does not detract from the single play experience.

That's what were going to prove.

That's what you're going to try to prove.  


:innocent:

[CannonO]

aridor1570 wrote...

Ghost-621 wrote...

CannonLars wrote...

Nope. Deus Ex? BioShock: Infinite? Skyrim? Arkham City?

Are any of these companies slaves to EA? Nope. They actually have freedom from "Herp derp please casuals derp!"

It's tacked on. I know it's tacked on. You know it's tacked on. EA and Bioware knows it's tacked on.

It's not tacket on when the executive producer planned it ever since the first game.

It's tacked on when the franchise launches itself and continues into a sequel touted as a deep SINGLEplayer experience, then it becomes an addition that was done by an extra studio to delegate resources so they can hurry towards the deadline.

[The Spamming Troll]

well apparently ME3 is going to be one of those games that does need it.

[Lumikki]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Do they need multiplay? No.

Can they have multiplay as an option for those that enjoy it? Yes, as long as it does not detract from the single play experience.

That's what were going to prove.

Will be interesting to see, how you gonna do it, when I don't even have internet connection in my game computer.

[Jaron Oberyn]

aridor1570 wrote...

Ghost-621 wrote...

CannonLars wrote...

Nope. Deus Ex? BioShock: Infinite? Skyrim? Arkham City?

Are any of these companies slaves to EA? Nope. They actually have freedom from "Herp derp please casuals derp!"

It's tacked on. I know it's tacked on. You know it's tacked on. EA and Bioware knows it's tacked on.

It's not tacket on when the executive producer planned it ever since the first game.

Ok im not against multi, but do you honestly believe that they planned the cooperative game mode for me3 since me1? Come on man..


-Polite

[Harbinger of your Destiny]

iakus wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Do they need multiplay? No.

Can they have multiplay as an option for those that enjoy it? Yes, as long as it does not detract from the single play experience.

That's what were going to prove.

That's what you're going to try to prove.  


:innocent:

Do or do not, there is no try.

[Harbinger of your Destiny]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

aridor1570 wrote...

Ghost-621 wrote...

CannonLars wrote...

Nope. Deus Ex? BioShock: Infinite? Skyrim? Arkham City?

Are any of these companies slaves to EA? Nope. They actually have freedom from "Herp derp please casuals derp!"

It's tacked on. I know it's tacked on. You know it's tacked on. EA and Bioware knows it's tacked on.

It's not tacket on when the executive producer planned it ever since the first game.

Ok im not against multi, but do you honestly believe that they planned the cooperative game mode for me3 since me1? Come on man..


-Polite

This specific type of multiplayer? No, but multiplayer in general? Yea.

[Gatt9]

Humanoid_Typhoon wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Thompson family wrote...

To succeed, no.

To become blockbusters? Probably.

I would have to disagree.

The Sims sold over 16 million units,  The Sims 2 moved 13 million,  The Sims Online bombed.  Final Fantasy 7 sold a metric crap ton of units,  the MMORPG barely stayed afloat.  The biggest know blockbuster,  Super Mario Bros,  moved 40 million units without multiplayer.  Pokemon Red and Blue moved over 20 million units.  Having Multiplayer doesn't make a game a blockbuster,  nor does not having it preclude a blockbuster.

In fact,  Angry Birds is said to have sold 12 million units and had over 400 million downloads,  making it hands down the most popular game in history (Unless you start counting arcades*).

It's just that some of the best selling games featured Multiplayer,  but in almost every case,  whether it's Halo,  Diablo,  Starcraft,  or CoD,  they've all been outsold by single player games that were of high quality.  In fact,  CoD and Starcraft are really the only two multiplayer games that approach some single player games.

Multiplayer can sell a game when it's done right (Starcraft,  Diablo,  Half-Life,  Team Fortress,  Doom,  etc),  but most often,  it's used as an excuse to cheap-out on the AI and balancing the game.  There's been countless attempts at cutting costs that way.

There've been alot of studies,  because of the behavior and average age of multiplayers,  most people who buy a game won't try it.  The quality of person in most multiplayer games drives people away.

Great games sell great,  no single "feature" is ever going to sell a game,  only the quality of the game.  a multiplayer meadowmuffing is still a meadowmuffin and won't sell.

*If you want to count arcades,  then the most popular game in history is Pac-man.  10 billion quarters,  2.5 billion in revenues,  and caused coin shortages in one country (US).  Following that is Space Invaders,  8 billion quarters,  2 billion in revenues,  and caused coin shortages in one country (Japan).  Then you get to Street Fighters,  which is only half of the two single player game's revenue.

Edit:

It's wikipedia,  so grain of salt (Should go without saying)

http://en.wikipedia....game_franchises

If the numbers are reasonably accurate,  you don't hit a primarily multiplayer franchise until the 6th entry,  and only 2 of the 10 series with > 100 million are primarily multiplayer,  and IIRC Call of Duty wasn't always about multiplayer.

Only 4 of the 12 that cracked 50 million were multiplayer.  Even if you go down to > 10 million,  they're still a minority.

Multiplayer is just not a neccessity.

Not that I don't agree with you or get what you are saying, but the topic is about games today, alot of what you are talking about was in the golden age (pre-XBL) 

I actually think that makes an even more important distinction though,  most of those games outsold today's "Blockbusters" by a very large margin.  If Multiplayer today is so critical to a game's success,  then why can't they outsell 10 or even 30 year old games that had a much smaller potential market? 

I would contend that the numbers actually indicate that Multiplayer is a liability.

Do they need multiplay? No.

Can they have multiplay as an option for those that enjoy it? Yes, as long as it does not detract from the single play experience.

That's what were going to prove.

I'm going to have to call shennagins here.

If it were "an option",  it wouldn't be so hard to bypass it that you had to "Do almost everything and do it really well".  It isn't all that optional,  and your goal wasn't to prove it didn't detract from the single player experience.  If it was,  it'd actually be Optional,  or it would be like Fable 2.

Your goal is to sell Online Passes,  if you wanted to prove something,  you would've made sure the optimal ending to a 3 game series wasn't effected by multiplayer.

[Blazenor]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Do they need multiplay? No.

Can they have multiplay as an option for those that enjoy it? Yes, as long as it does not detract from the single play experience.

That's what were going to prove.

I was really hoping that the multiplayer does not detract from the single player content, but from what I've read it is still connected to the single player experience as an another option for one of the endgame stats. 

I hope you prove you can do it.

[Lukertin]

Pappi wrote...
I hope not, particular as multiplayer these days relies on an internet connection--which not everyone has.

Whose fault is that? What century are we in, the 20th?

If you own a computer and use it to play games, you have no excuse for not having an internet connection unless you live in the middle of nowhere and satellite cost $200/mo for 56k quality

Modifié par Lukertin, 20 octobre 2011 - 02:46 .

[aridor1570]

Blazenor wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Do they need multiplay? No.

Can they have multiplay as an option for those that enjoy it? Yes, as long as it does not detract from the single play experience.

That's what were going to prove.

I was really hoping that the multiplayer does not detract from the single player content, but from what I've read it is still connected to the single player experience as an another option for one of the endgame stats. 

I hope you prove you can do it.

It's an alternative way to get the best ending, you can get all ending, may they be the best of the lamest in singleplayer without touching MP, they made it quite clear.

[Lukertin]

Gatt9 wrote...
Move up to the 90's PC era,  and games were designed to take weeks of play,  like pretty much every game released was designed to be a minimum of 40 hours and most much more.

Having games which required the player to continually repeat sequences so that he could get another chance to achieve X in order to progress is not synonymous with 'designed to be a minimum of 40 hours to complete'.

Move up to the modern era,  8-12 hours isn't unusual.  40 hours max.  Why?  Because they'll have another new game out a few weeks later,  and they want you to be dropping $60 more,  not still playing the last game.  Publishers don't want great games,  they want fast games with lots of buzzwords so they can move you on to the next buy as fast as possible.

More like the shorter games (like FPS) simply followed the precedent of other FPS games from the 90's (Half-Life took me like 40 hours to beat, HL2 was like 30-ish? The Halo games have clocked in at a consistent 25-30 hours). The thing is, all these games had very trumped up multiplayer--it was a main selling point of the game and people bought it for the MP, not the SP--nobody cared how long the game takes to beat, SP was something they played in their spare time when their friends were unavailable.

A purely single player game does not take 8-12 hours to complete, no game with a major single player focus takes anywhere near that amount of time to beat.

[elfdwarf]

i'm laughing
pass is like cerberus network card
multiplayer is in game with or without pass
don't throw it way(or sell it ) might have bonus content or dlc

[GMagnum]

sup dragon age: o
sup oblivion
sup skyrim
sup arkham asylum
sup arkham city
sup mass effect
sup mass effect 2
sup FF series
sup fallout
sup deus ex

[Gatt9]

Lukertin wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
Move up to the 90's PC era,  and games were designed to take weeks of play,  like pretty much every game released was designed to be a minimum of 40 hours and most much more.

Having games which required the player to continually repeat sequences so that he could get another chance to achieve X in order to progress is not synonymous with 'designed to be a minimum of 40 hours to complete'.

Many games during that era did not force you to repeat sequences.  SSI's games,  Tie Fighter,  Master's of Orion,  Masters of Magic,  Betrayl at Krondor,  Crusader,  Warlords,  Simcity,  the list goes on and on.

In contrast,  ME2 is very often the exact same mission over and over,  complete with the exact same bosses,  in nearly identical corridors.  Never mind the continual repition of "Hacking" in ME2,  that's literally the exact same thing 40 times over to aquire credits that don't actually matter.

If anything is an exercise in repition,  it's "Modern" games.

Move up to the modern era,  8-12 hours isn't unusual.  40 hours max.  Why?  Because they'll have another new game out a few weeks later,  and they want you to be dropping $60 more,  not still playing the last game.  Publishers don't want great games,  they want fast games with lots of buzzwords so they can move you on to the next buy as fast as possible.

More like the shorter games (like FPS) simply followed the precedent of other FPS games from the 90's (Half-Life took me like 40 hours to beat, HL2 was like 30-ish? The Halo games have clocked in at a consistent 25-30 hours). The thing is, all these games had very trumped up multiplayer--it was a main selling point of the game and people bought it for the MP, not the SP--nobody cared how long the game takes to beat, SP was something they played in their spare time when their friends were unavailable.

A purely single player game does not take 8-12 hours to complete, no game with a major single player focus takes anywhere near that amount of time to beat.

Once again,  we return to the well studied fact that most people don't actually play multiplayer.  Which is really quite obvious when you look at the link I posted,  and notice the huge skew towards single player games and phenomenal sales,  and the sparse appearance of multiplayer.  All of these Multiplayer games were outsold by single player ones,  often with a much smaller market.  Pretty much no multiplayer game in the history of gaming has the top spot in sales,  any way you want to look at it,  and the top 10 of any given system is consistently not multiplayer.  The only exception to the whole thing being Mario,  where one could argue that Mario Party existed,  but becomes irrelevant when you dig deeper and that it doesn't compare to the single player game's sales.

I'll also have to refer you to Gamespot reviews,  because they quite commonly point out that games take 8-12 hours to beat.

In short,  every single number and metric illustrates that Multiplayer does not guarantee good sales and is not necessary.

I also have to point out,  if no-one cares about the single player,  then why did Microsoft dump a ton of cash into the development of the single player components of those games?  Your arguement means that MS knowingly wasted an enourmous amount of money when they could've just released a bunch of maps and deathmatches.

Except games have done that,  and none of them register amongst the highest sales.  Even the legendary Starcraft and Diablo sit way down on the list.

[Lukertin]

Gatt9 wrote...
Once again,  we return to the well studied fact that most people don't actually play multiplayer.  Which is really quite obvious when you look at the link I posted,  and notice the huge skew towards single player games and phenomenal sales,  and the sparse appearance of multiplayer.  All of these Multiplayer games were outsold by single player ones,  often with a much smaller market.  Pretty much no multiplayer game in the history of gaming has the top spot in sales,  any way you want to look at it,  and the top 10 of any given system is consistently not multiplayer.  The only exception to the whole thing being Mario,  where one could argue that Mario Party existed,  but becomes irrelevant when you dig deeper and that it doesn't compare to the single player game's sales.

The conclusions you draw from your link suffers from several fatal flaws. The first and most obvious one being that it is a listing of the best selling franchise in history. Super Mario? How many games feature mario? 200? And they are all counted towards sales for the purposes of your link, yet a large percentage of them even included multiplayer (Mario Tennis, Mario Cart, etc). Final Fantasy? How many games there? 10? Your vaulted list isn't even consistent with itself because it clearly refers to video game franchises, and then has a separate entry for Mario and Mario Kart. What a joke.

You have no problem comparing a franchise like COD or Halo or whatever which has had less than 5 game releases to something has been out for more than two decades, and then claim that single player is more attractive than multiplayer on that basis alone?

Bull****.

I'll also have to refer you to Gamespot reviews,  because they quite commonly point out that games take 8-12 hours to beat.

Yes, a game like COD4 takes 8-12 hours to beat. And guess what? Go poll purchasers of COD4 and ask them whether they bought the game for the Singleplayer, or for Multiplayer, and let me know how many answered singleplayer.

In short,  every single number and metric illustrates that Multiplayer does not guarantee good sales and is not necessary.

In short you don't know how to collect data and draw conclusions from it.

I also have to point out,  if no-one cares about the single player,  then why did Microsoft dump a ton of cash into the development of the single player components of those games?  Your arguement means that MS knowingly wasted an enourmous amount of money when they could've just released a bunch of maps and deathmatches.

They certainly could have. You notice how they released map packs and made people pay for them? Hm. Maybe consider that Bungie had some level of artistic vision when they made Halo and wanted to tell a story, so that's what they did? Why has Valve released standalone games such as the highly popular and successful Counter-Strike, Team Fortress 2, Left for Dead 1&2, and is now making a new version of Counter-Strike: Go?

Because they realize that nobody really cares about singleplayer when they buy a game that features multiplayer. Half-life 2 came out and people were playing CS and DoD on the Source engine the next day and completely forgoing the SP campaign. Why is that? I'm pretty sure Valve knows what their consumers are doing through Steam, but apparently you have better insight.

Except games have done that,  and none of them register amongst the highest sales.  Even the legendary Starcraft and Diablo sit way down on the list.

And the data for them is wrong, because the Starcraft franchise is listed at 11 million copies sold when Starcraft 1 alone sold almost 11 million copies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarCraft), never mind Brood War (probably sold close to as many copies as SC1) or Starcraft 2 (sold 4.5 million in first 6 months after release: http://en.wikipedia....ings_of_Liberty) .

So 3 games at, let's say, 25 million copies sold for Starcraft. Compared to 262 million copies sold for 200 Mario games. You know that 262 sounds kind of low, I have a feeling they didn't count Gameboy and Wii releases--let's make it 500 million.

Starcraft still wins. The Mario franchise must sell approximately 1500 million copies to even come close to competing with Starcraft. I rest my case.

Modifié par Lukertin, 20 octobre 2011 - 05:15 .

[CroGamer002]

Gatt9 wrote...

I'm going to have to call shennagins here.

If it were "an option",  it wouldn't be so hard to bypass it that you had to "Do almost everything and do it really well".  It isn't all that optional,  and your goal wasn't to prove it didn't detract from the single player experience.  If it was,  it'd actually be Optional,  or it would be like Fable 2.

Your goal is to sell Online Passes,  if you wanted to prove something,  you would've made sure the optimal ending to a 3 game series wasn't effected by multiplayer.

Did you even read FAQ?

You'll still be able to get the best ending in ME3 without Co-Op.

Just with Co-Op is easier.


And Online Pass is reasonable.
Developers don't get any money from used games and they even lose more money on that then on piracy!
So hence the online pass.


Wanna DLC's and to play multiplayer on servers we payed?
Then pay the game to us!

[Reptillius]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Do they need multiplay? No.

Can they have multiplay as an option for those that enjoy it? Yes, as long as it does not detract from the single play experience.

That's what were going to prove.

I'm with Chris on this one.  Not really. But if it can add to the game realistically without taking away from the single player and be something interesting to actually play.  I've got no problem with it. So until ME3 comes out we won't see but Bioware has done good stories in the past.  Afterall. Even in DAII it's not the story that's the problem.  So I don't think ME3 will have that problem either.

[MarauderESP]

no they don't need it , if they do things right of course , however they are need to force u to install unnecesary apliclations like disguised spyware

[Forsythia]

Of course games don't need it. But let's face it, the 'casual' gamer, who only buys maybe 6 games a year, is going to play one game a loooong time and they'll be more likely to buy a multiplayer title. What I don't get, however, is that publishers think adding multiplayer automatically increases their sales, as there are only a few multiplayer games that are played by a large group of people (CoD/Halo/Gears/MMO's). Look at all those games with tacked on multiplayer (BioShock 2, anyone?) that is as good as dead. It seems a waste of time and resources to me.

I do hope Chris is right and that I can still find people playing ME3 co-op a year after release.

Modifié par Forsythia, 20 octobre 2011 - 08:27 .