128 réponses à ce sujet

[Urazz]

I generally, don't like multiplayer in single player games, I felt the ME3 multiplayer was a bad idea and felt forced by EA even if it was decent.

My friends and I were discussing on our lunch break at work about how some games end up being bad investments because too much money was spent on them that it pretty much made it so a game had to sell a lot more copies than it was capable of selling.  This got me thinking about EA and their idea of forcing Bioware and other companies under their umbrella to put multiplayer in their games even if they are primarily single player games.

Sure they may put the multiplayer aspect of a game under a different company or give the company making the game more time and money to finish the game but doesn't this also come at a price?  Doesn't this increase the total amount of money a company like EA invests in a game and raise the amount of copies a game needs for it to be successful enough for them to want a sequel to be made?

I think it does and it gets me thinking that is one of the main reasons why EA has been having issues lately.  They have been forcing multiplayer on games that it just doesn't work for in hopes of drawing players that focus on multiplayer games.  How many people have gotten ME3 for it's multiplayer or played it solely for the multiplayer?  Not many to my knowledge and while ME3 was successful as a game, it would've been even more of a success for EA I think if it didn't have that money invested on a multiplayer aspect.

[Maria Caliban]

Urazz wrote...


I think it does and it gets me thinking that is one of the main reasons why EA has been having issues lately.

EA is doing better financially than it has in years.

Also, "Feature I don't like just happens to be leading you to ruin" is a rather transparent argument.

[Jamie9]

While, yes, creating a MP mode costs money, I think the industry speaks for itself in that MP makes more money. There are people who will spend a ton of money on resource packs in ME3, or map packs in other games, and it has higher profit margins than the game itself, which can often include middle men such as retailers.

As an SP gamer myself, I most likely won't be playing the MP, and it better not affect the SP in any way.

However, citing cost efficiency as a reason to not create a MP mode is incorrect, I believe.

Modifié par Jamie9, 03 septembre 2013 - 02:37 .

[Zanallen]

I just want to see a Gauntlet style DA MP mode.

[In Exile]

ME3 MP was very successful, so it's difficult to imagine Bioware not wanting to add MP to DAI.

[mupp3tz]

Well, as an EA company they don't really have a choice for it. I agree that there's a place for MP but not in every game. Sure, EA may provide financial backing, but at the end of the day that's more time and effort spent brainstorming something that no one would have noticed if it were gone to begin with. If we do see MP in DA:I, I really hope it's not tied to SP campaign.

Modifié par M U P P 3 T Z, 03 septembre 2013 - 02:46 .

[Thresh the Qunari]

does no one remember baldur's gate 2's co-op

Modifié par Thresh the Qunari, 03 septembre 2013 - 02:48 .

[Urazz]

In Exile wrote...

ME3 MP was very successful, so it's difficult to imagine Bioware not wanting to add MP to DAI.

Was it that successful?  Sure people played it and it was fairly decent but I don't recall Bioware actually giving numbers on how well it did or touting the number of players playing it.  Nor did we actually see any people claim that they got the game for the multiplayer.

If it was very successful don't you think they would still be supporting it in some fashion instead of abandoning it after the final ME3 multiplayer DLCs were released?

Hell, I saw more complaints about the multiplayer tying into the results of the singleplayer than actual compliments about it.

Thresh the Qunari wrote...

does no one remember baldur's gate 2's co-op

It was more than just the ability to join other people's games, it was the abilty to make your own dungeons and the like.  It's not really feasible in today's games where things are much more complex now.

Just allowing people to join in your game, while fun initially, would end up being boring and just be a gimmick.  Bioware would probably have to give the game full out modding support  and give players a dungeon tool as well so they can make their own campaigns.

Modifié par Urazz, 03 septembre 2013 - 03:02 .

[In Exile]

Urazz wrote...
Was it that successful?  Sure people played it and it was fairly decent but I don't recall Bioware actually giving numbers on how well it did or touting the number of players playing it.  Nor did we actually see any people claim that they got the game for the multiplayer.

The majority of people who play it liked it, EA supported it like mad for a very long time with free DLC because they were (apparently) raking it in via microtransactions, etc. 

A game doesn't need to be bought exclusively for MP to be succesful because of MP. It could be as simple as keeping people into the game enough to buy 3 DLCs worth of content and some microtransaction, getting an extra 20$ per person.

If it was very successful don't you think they would still be supporting it in some fashion instead of abandoning it after the final ME3 multiplayer DLCs were released?

Hell, I saw more complaints about the multiplayer tying into the results of the singleplayer than actual compliments about it.

You seem to be confusing succesful with independently succesful. 

[Jamie9]

Urazz wrote...
Was it that successful?  Sure people played it and it was fairly decent but I don't recall Bioware actually giving numbers on how well it did or touting the number of players playing it.  Nor did we actually see any people claim that they got the game for the multiplayer.

If it was very successful don't you think they would still be supporting it in some fashion instead of abandoning it after the final ME3 multiplayer DLCs were released?

Hell, I saw more complaints about the multiplayer tying into the results of the singleplayer than actual compliments about it.

I know it was in the Top 10 played MP games on Xbox Live for a while. As for how well exactly it did, I couldn't say, but they were able to convince EA to release all of the MP DLC for free, so I'd guess the resource packs sold a bunch.

That's because it was annoying as hell. But you have to remember that the BSN is an incredibly small minority of total players, and as a community tend to complain about everything.

[Kalas Magnus]

Urazz wrote...
  How many people have gotten ME3 for it's multiplayer or played it solely for the multiplayer?

i think more than you think. it was the thing that saved the game for me. I would have stopped playing soon after release if it wasnt for multiplayer.
I was against it too at first
But it has grown on me.

I want multiplayer for DA:I .  biower has proven they can do a great job with multiplayer. 
And with the next gen consoles i cant wait. 

Modifié par Kalas Magnus, 03 septembre 2013 - 03:07 .

[Urazz]

In Exile wrote...

Urazz wrote...
Was it that successful?  Sure people played it and it was fairly decent but I don't recall Bioware actually giving numbers on how well it did or touting the number of players playing it.  Nor did we actually see any people claim that they got the game for the multiplayer.

The majority of people who play it liked it, EA supported it like mad for a very long time with free DLC because they were (apparently) raking it in via microtransactions, etc. 

A game doesn't need to be bought exclusively for MP to be succesful because of MP. It could be as simple as keeping people into the game enough to buy 3 DLCs worth of content and some microtransaction, getting an extra 20$ per person.

If it was very successful don't you think they would still be supporting it in some fashion instead of abandoning it after the final ME3 multiplayer DLCs were released?

Hell, I saw more complaints about the multiplayer tying into the results of the singleplayer than actual compliments about it.

You seem to be confusing succesful with independently succesful. 

Again, if it was as successful as you say, wouldn't they still be supporting it as long as it was making them money off of DLC and micro transactions?  The last multiplayer DLC was back at the end of February and they stopped doing any kind of events as well to give people incentive to play it after the last DLCs hit.  If it was that successful then shouldn't they have still do events at the very least instead of dropping it all like a hot potato once that last DLC hit?

I'm worried that the same thing would happen with DA:I.  They would do something moderately appealing and then drop all support for it and kill it off because it's not as successful as they would like because not as many micro transaction are being made.

Modifié par Urazz, 03 septembre 2013 - 03:17 .

[Kalas Magnus]

Urazz wrote...

In Exile wrote...

ME3 MP was very successful, so it's difficult to imagine Bioware not wanting to add MP to DAI.

Was it that successful?  Sure people played it and it was fairly decent but I don't recall Bioware actually giving numbers on how well it did or touting the number of players playing it.  Nor did we actually see any people claim that they got the game for the multiplayer.

If it was very successful don't you think they would still be supporting it in some fashion instead of abandoning it after the final ME3 multiplayer DLCs were released?

Hell, I saw more complaints about the multiplayer tying into the results of the singleplayer than actual compliments about it.

you visited the wrong forum

a lot of us loved it in the multiplayer sub forum
the devs were involved for an entire year. they gave us balance changes and patches. Loved it. and they responded to threads often.
they gave us great content as 'free' dlc. the micro transactions funded them so a lot of people obviously liked it.
the only reason they abondened us was because they went to work on  other projects. 

[HiddenInWar]

In Exile wrote...

ME3 MP was very successful, so it's difficult to imagine Bioware not wanting to add MP to DAI.

[Urazz]

Kalas Magnus wrote...

Urazz wrote...

In Exile wrote...

ME3 MP was very successful, so it's difficult to imagine Bioware not wanting to add MP to DAI.

Was it that successful?  Sure people played it and it was fairly decent but I don't recall Bioware actually giving numbers on how well it did or touting the number of players playing it.  Nor did we actually see any people claim that they got the game for the multiplayer.

If it was very successful don't you think they would still be supporting it in some fashion instead of abandoning it after the final ME3 multiplayer DLCs were released?

Hell, I saw more complaints about the multiplayer tying into the results of the singleplayer than actual compliments about it.

you visited the wrong forum

a lot of us loved it in the multiplayer sub forum
the devs were involved for an entire year. they gave us balance changes and patches. Loved it. and they responded to threads often.
they gave us great content as 'free' dlc. the micro transactions funded them so a lot of people obviously liked it.
the only reason they abondened us was because they went to work on  other projects. 

I did go to the multiplayer forums and I think that if it was as successful as you claim, then they could've still had a minimal crew to at least put up new events at least.  I can understand not doing any more DLC but if it was that successful then they could've had some people around to at least keep up those weekly events that made people want to play to potentially get more micro transactions going for a little while.

[Kalas Magnus]

Urazz wrote...

Kalas Magnus wrote...

Urazz wrote...

In Exile wrote...

ME3 MP was very successful, so it's difficult to imagine Bioware not wanting to add MP to DAI.

Was it that successful?  Sure people played it and it was fairly decent but I don't recall Bioware actually giving numbers on how well it did or touting the number of players playing it.  Nor did we actually see any people claim that they got the game for the multiplayer.

If it was very successful don't you think they would still be supporting it in some fashion instead of abandoning it after the final ME3 multiplayer DLCs were released?

Hell, I saw more complaints about the multiplayer tying into the results of the singleplayer than actual compliments about it.

you visited the wrong forum

a lot of us loved it in the multiplayer sub forum
the devs were involved for an entire year. they gave us balance changes and patches. Loved it. and they responded to threads often.
they gave us great content as 'free' dlc. the micro transactions funded them so a lot of people obviously liked it.
the only reason they abondened us was because they went to work on  other projects. 

I did go to the multiplayer forums and I think that if it was as successful as you claim, then they could've still had a minimal crew to at least put up new events at least.  I can understand not doing any more DLC but if it was that successful then they could've had some people around to at least keep up those weekly events that made people want to play to potentially get more micro transactions going for a little while.

i think the reason they left was to work on inquisition. it was supposed to come out this year.

so maybe if they had delayed it before february we might have gotten even more support

Also, i think they said not many games get support past 1 year. Does COD even get that?

Modifié par Kalas Magnus, 03 septembre 2013 - 03:25 .

[AppealToReason]

Kalas Magnus wrote...

Urazz wrote...

Kalas Magnus wrote...

Urazz wrote...

In Exile wrote...

ME3 MP was very successful, so it's difficult to imagine Bioware not wanting to add MP to DAI.

Was it that successful?  Sure people played it and it was fairly decent but I don't recall Bioware actually giving numbers on how well it did or touting the number of players playing it.  Nor did we actually see any people claim that they got the game for the multiplayer.

If it was very successful don't you think they would still be supporting it in some fashion instead of abandoning it after the final ME3 multiplayer DLCs were released?

Hell, I saw more complaints about the multiplayer tying into the results of the singleplayer than actual compliments about it.

you visited the wrong forum

a lot of us loved it in the multiplayer sub forum
the devs were involved for an entire year. they gave us balance changes and patches. Loved it. and they responded to threads often.
they gave us great content as 'free' dlc. the micro transactions funded them so a lot of people obviously liked it.
the only reason they abondened us was because they went to work on  other projects. 

I did go to the multiplayer forums and I think that if it was as successful as you claim, then they could've still had a minimal crew to at least put up new events at least.  I can understand not doing any more DLC but if it was that successful then they could've had some people around to at least keep up those weekly events that made people want to play to potentially get more micro transactions going for a little while.

i think the reason they left was to work on inquisition. it was supposed to come out this year.

so maybe if they had delayed it before february we might have gotten even more support

Also, i think they said not many games get support past 1 year. Does COD even get that?

Hell no. COD gets like 9 months before they pull the entire team. A year of support is really good. Besides MMO's thats a really long time for a multiplayer to get support and what not.

[AlanC9]

Urazz wrote...

I did go to the multiplayer forums and I think that if it was as successful as you claim, then they could've still had a minimal crew to at least put up new events at least.  I can understand not doing any more DLC but if it was that successful then they could've had some people around to at least keep up those weekly events that made people want to play to potentially get more micro transactions going for a little while.

So... the argument is that ME3 MP was not actually profitable? If that was really true, then we don't need to have this conversation since EA will come to their senses and stop throwing away money on MP anyway. 

[holdenagincourt]

Multiplayer had a better plot than single player.

Yeah I just went there.

[Vicious]

Stupid. People said the same thing about ME3's multiplayer it it wound up being one of the game's most popular features. You did not like it. Gratz. But most who tried it did, or the ME3 multiplayer forum wouldn't have been chock full of people begging for more classes and maps and multiplayer content.

[ParkBom]

OP, you've got a handful of MP veterans posting in this thread. You're not going to convince anyone (Who knows what they're talking about) that MP wasn't a great success. Just stop.

/thread

[SNascimento]

Vicious wrote...

Stupid. People said the same thing about ME3's multiplayer it it wound up being one of the game's most popular features. You did not like it. Gratz. But most who tried it did, or the ME3 multiplayer forum wouldn't have been chock full of people begging for more classes and maps and multiplayer content.

Pretty much this. ME3's MP was amazing and got a lot of positive feedback. Which I'm sure wasn't a surprise for a lot of people. Anyone playing ME2 could see the potential for a MP component in a ME game. So unless someone can prove the MP affected the SP development in some way there is no case to be made here. If anything, Mass Effect 3 shows how to perfectly integrate MP to a previously SP-only franchise. Assassin's Creed is another franchise that did this very well. 

Tomb Raider in the other hand is a game that the MP didn't work. I played it a bit and never touched it again (the MP). But I'm not sure how popular it is.

As I see it, most complaints about MP in a SP game are more subjectives, more based on feeling than on fact. There are more than one example out there showing it can be done and overall improve the franchise as a result. 

All that said, as opposed to Mass Effect in which I saw the potential of a multiplayer component, I don't see it in Dragon Age. It can be done, and can be good, but it will need some thinking. As of now, I can say nothing about it other than it might be good or it might not. 

Modifié par SNascimento, 03 septembre 2013 - 05:02 .