250 réponses à ce sujet

[Reptillius]

Forsythia wrote...

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.

People were playing and modding BG2 7 years after it came out.  So it is completely possible.  And Bioware would be a company that could pull it off.

[CroGamer002]

jreezy wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...
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.

How is that possible when both situations produce the same result?

More people buy used games then pirate games. And that's how many gaming companies view that.
And unlike piracy, buying used games is in every way legal.


With online pass they get rid of that problem easily.

[CannonO]

Mesina2 wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...
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.

How is that possible when both situations produce the same result?

More people buy used games then pirate games. And that's how many gaming companies view that.
And unlike piracy, buying used games is in every way legal.


With online pass they get rid of that problem easily.

I don't mind online passes like Cerberus Network, IF THEY WORK CLEARLY AND EASILY. I can't tell you how hard it was to figure out what email address my ME2 Cerberus Network wanted me to enter the code with. It should have had some more information so I could check. Lost my Terminus gear that way. Figured it out eventually, but sheesh.

[LGTX]

Gatt9 wrote...


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.

It isn't

[preacher0057]

Well all I can say is I will not play multiplayer and BioWare can go to hell I will not be buying mass three now.

[Zanallen]

preacher0057 wrote...

Well all I can say is I will not play multiplayer and BioWare can go to hell I will not be buying mass three now.

So you aren't buying ME3 because of the completely optional multiplayer mode that, from what the devs have said, took no resources away from the single player game? Gotcha. Completely rational.

[FDrage]

Zanallen wrote...

preacher0057 wrote...

Well all I can say is I will not play multiplayer and BioWare can go to hell I will not be buying mass three now.

So you aren't buying ME3 because of the completely optional multiplayer mode that, from what the devs have said, took no resources away from the single player game? Gotcha. Completely rational.

so you are say that if something dislikes a sort of quite fundamental change in the approach to a game optional or not ... that person has no right to vote with te wallet and is therefore not rational ? ONe could say believing everything teh Devs say and taking it at face value is completely rational as well ...
Side missions are completely optional ... buy a game is completely optional ... as well. So if someone doesn't like MP or teh inclusion of MP into a previous SP franchise that is there right and it should just be respected the same way as someone who likes MP and was desperate for its inclusion into ME3. The same "issues" applied when MP was stuill a rumour and Bioware pasted every mentioning of MP as just a rumour and MP fans were rediculed for wanting MP and mentioning sid rumours.

If it has taken away from SP or not ... Devs wouldn't come out saying that anyway as that would create quite a storm. If some of the resources (regardless of it being a different team as resources can be anything) have been transfer from SP to MP or not doesn't make much of a difference as the MP needs to pay itself one way or the other by increased sales due to MP not just due to the success that was ME2.

[BeastMTL]

Zanallen wrote...

preacher0057 wrote...

Well all I can say is I will not play multiplayer and BioWare can go to hell I will not be buying mass three now.

So you aren't buying ME3 because of the completely optional multiplayer mode that, from what the devs have said, took no resources away from the single player game? Gotcha. Completely rational.

And believing everything the devs say is much better ? After all, they never twisted statements to fit theirs needs ever right ? right ?

[Zanallen]

BeastMTL wrote...

And believing everything the devs say is much better ? After all, they never twisted statements to fit theirs needs ever right ? right ?

Hey, I'm as pessimistic as the next guy. Even my avatar is rather dour. However, I think it is silly to deny yourself the culmination of a trilogy because of an optional feature. That's like not watching Return of the Jedi because they added in an optional 3D mode.

[Arken]

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.

Didn't Assassin's Creed already prove that with Brotherhood? 

A little late to the, "proving a point" party. You've been beat to that punch. 

Actually Conker's Bad Fur Day, a game that came out on Nintendo 64, had pretty good multiplayer and a good singler player campaign. Conker's Bad Fur Day originally came out in 2001, before Microsoft bought Rare and censored Conker to hell.

So technically you've been beat to it by about ten years.

There was also this one game called Shattered Steel. 

So you guys are going to prove a point you already proved in 1996? Good to see you going back to your roots. Not sure why you guys suddenly decided to not make multiplayer games, but it's nice to hear you're including Co-Op in Mass Effect 3.

So to anyone who has doubts and thinks, "this isn't Bioware" remember that Bioware has done this before.

Modifié par Arken, 20 octobre 2011 - 02:01 .

[TheRealJayDee]

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.

We'll see wether you succeed in "proving" that. I'll buy ME3 no matter what (although Origin is really a problem), but with the inclusion of multiplayer you automatically set the bar for the singleplayer even higher. Maybe I'll even try it (especially if I can play alone), but imo it is still risky move, that might end up affecting the game's reception in one way or the other. I will remain sceptical until I have experienced a totally satisfying conclusion to Shepard's story.

And please, don't feel offended or anything, but you really managed to make me much more of a pessimist than I ever was (as far as gaming companies etc are concerned)  with DA2, it's PR aftermath and the whole "no comment on rumours, you won't believe us anyway". Exhibit A:

Chris Priestly wrote...

Has Dragon Age 2 been rushed?

No.

Chris Priestly wrote...

What's your definition of "rushed"?

Rushed - not enough time taken to make the item top quality.

And I know there's not much else you could have said in that situation, but still...

[Destroy Raiden_]

No they don't need multiplayer just like they don't need zombies in everything what a game really needs to succeed is a backbone, strong story, strong characters, and at minimum decent gameplay.

[Lukertin]

Destroy Raiden wrote...

No they don't need multiplayer just like they don't need zombies in everything what a game really needs to succeed is a backbone, strong story, strong characters, and at minimum decent gameplay.

Actually almost every triple-A title includes some form of zombies in their games. It's basically a requirement.

[RamirezWolfen]

Not necessarily. It just happens to be that multiplayer is popular, and people are willing to pay for what's popular, so why not add it?

Modifié par RamirezWolfen, 20 octobre 2011 - 02:59 .

[Lukertin]

RamirezWolfen wrote...

Not necessarily. It just happens to be that multiplayer is popular, and people are willing to pay for what's popular, so why not add it?

If people were willing to pay for what's popular why doesn't BioWare charge a premium for co-op in ME3?

They aren't.

So people aren't willing to pay for what's 'popular'. multiplayer is not 'popular'

Modifié par Lukertin, 20 octobre 2011 - 03:06 .

[RamirezWolfen]

Lukertin wrote...

RamirezWolfen wrote...

Not necessarily. It just happens to be that multiplayer is popular, and people are willing to pay for what's popular, so why not add it?

If people were willing to pay for what's popular why doesn't BioWare charge a premium for co-op in ME3?

They aren't.

So people aren't willing to pay for what's 'popular'. multiplayer is not 'popular'

Premiums are popular?

And if multiplayer isn't popular, why is it in so many games?

[Lukertin]

RamirezWolfen wrote...
Premiums are popular?

And if multiplayer isn't popular, why is it in so many games?

Because the game IS multiplayer. Example: People bought Starcraft2 for the multiplayer. A sizeable chunk of them never even played the single player because they don't care about that crap. They were willing to pay $60 just for the multiplayer, while most players paid $60 for both single & multiplayer. That means the former group constructively paid a premium for their game. Compare to Bioshock2, most of the people bought that for the single player, not the multiplayer. Probably 5 people total bought Bioshock2 for the multiplayer on that basis alone.

That makes multiplayer popular? LMAO

To make it clearer:
How much people would pay for sc2 if it only offered multiplayer: $40-60
How much people would pay for Bioshock2 if it only offered multiplayer: $0
How much people would pay for COD if it only offered multiplayer: $50-60
How much people would pay for ME3 if it only offered multiplayer: Negative $20

This is the multiplayer premium. This is how you determine whether it is 'popular' or not.

Modifié par Lukertin, 20 octobre 2011 - 03:53 .

[SinnersDestiny]

Do you buy Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Assassin's Creed, Bioshock, Uncharted, Tomb Raider, Ninja Gaiden, Dead Space, Silent Hill etc of because of multiplayer? No? Some of those games don't even have mulitplayer?

Question answered.

No. It is not needed in games which main feature are SP experiences. You are ineffectively trying to target an audience which a main portion of the game is not aimed at anyway. It is just an unneeded "bonus". Why have an MP on a game that is meant to be SP? It doesn't always work. Sometimes it doesn't even make any sense. Also, some people don't have the money to pay for the internet or Live. Obviously SP games are targeted to people who like an SP experience.

Unless it is games like Portal 2 that can effectively implement the use online co-op to work together, which does not effect the SP in any way and adds a new dimension to the game, or Halo which is mainly liked for it's multi (although, I bet if they actually tried to do an epic SP or offline/online co-op story it would be amazing) or a game like CoD then it is just a waste and general bad idea unless you know it will work and goes with the game.

I mean seriously, why on earth would Assassin's Creed or Bioshock even NEED an MP option? You don't buy those games for that. If game devs are going to make an epic SP game, make sure it will actually be one, not try to be something it's not. What this whole "add multi on to every game" thing is, is just greed.

One good game that implements online components, while not being MP, since it is an SP game, is Dark Souls. Very clever idea. Now that is good use of online. If Devs want to go the online route, if they can pull something like that off, instead of just going the easy tack on/just make it multi route, then it will work.

But again, not every game needs multi. ESPECIALLY single player games. People are very much looking forward to the SP game Skyrim despite no MP, aren't they? Mass Effect does not need MP either. The main draw to ME is the story, characters and choices. Not the actual combat, which is mainly what multiplayer is aimed at. And it's the same with Dragon Age. No need for MP.

I still play Jade Empire and Ninja Gaiden, and adore playing them. Do those have MP or online features?
MP can get boring. Fast. The reason why is because most of the time it has no substance. And I prefer games to be driven. I don't want games that I and others have to drive in order to be fun.

And another thing. Shooters DO NOT have to be MP focused to be fun. Take a look at Crysis 2. The meat and potatoes are in the SP. It's focus is the SP and it is great. Dead Space is another one where the SP takes over the (awful and unneeded) MP. ME does not need MP either. Because the SP is the meat and potatoes also. You don't buy ME just to shoot things with your friends.

Modifié par SinnersDestiny, 20 octobre 2011 - 04:22 .

[Skullheart]

there should be an option to change your mp mode for bw points...

[The Spamming Troll]

you cant say bioware is putting zero resources to MP. you dont lift up a rock and find MP. was the game delayed solely becasue of MP?

id rather see bioware working on reimplementing the overheating weapons, revamping the horrid enemy protections scheme, and put more effort into the SP campaign. rather then adding on a MP that ill most likely play for 2 months.

im just glad ME2 already shattered my dreams of having the best game ever with ME3.

[Lukertin]

Skullheart wrote...
there should be an option to change your mp mode for bw points...

then i could get LotSB

[Dazaster Dellus]

Batman Arkham City is already being hailed as one of the greatest games ever made and it doesn't have a multiplayer. So no, a game doesn't need to have mp in order to succeed. Especially if you are dedicated and good at doing what you do.

[Axelstall]

Their probably at the stage where the single player is complete, so they are adding Co-Op because they heard people say it would seem fun. (I think it will be fun also)
I don't see why you hate the concept of it so much, no it doesn't need it, however that doesn't mean it can't have it. Besides it's not going to take away from single player, there's a different team in charge of it for that exact reason.

Another thing people here talk about it like the game's going to start and they'll be shot into Co-Op before the main menu opens, it's optional for a reason. If you don't want to play it, ok, then please stop complaining, they are too far in development to get rid of it now.

On original topic. No games don't need multiplayer to succeed. However, it doesn't hurt. (Besides it could be awesome) (P.S. I won't respond to flames)

[CannonO]

Dazaster Dellus wrote...

Batman Arkham City is already being hailed as one of the greatest games ever made and it doesn't have a multiplayer. So no, a game doesn't need to have mp in order to succeed. Especially if you are dedicated and good at doing what you do.

Yeah, I think it is a great example. It has been well-received and sold well without any multiplayer appeal. I got it and it is as good as the reviews say.

[Iakus]

Do games need multiplayer to succeed? No

However, I suspect there's a law somewhere that requires any game that has shooting in it to have multiplayer.