Support NeoGAF

[Guilty_AI]

Some foods for thought. I don't play multiplayer games very frequently, but i don't really have anything against the idea of MP in particular.
So i've compiled some of the things that usually put me off from them, and want to see if more people agree.

So, would you play them more if none of these were an issue?

>Forced internet/server connection
This is a particularly off putting aspect as i feel like i'm not in control of my own product.
"Oh, but you need to be connected to the internet to..." that is a BALD FACED LIE and a notion people need to throw in the trash already. There are tons MP games from the 90s and early 2000s, as well as some modern ones, that can be still be played just fine even if any official server is down and forgotten. Through LANs, private servers, or even just you alone strolling around the map or whatever.

>Excess of limited time events
I HATE games that force me to manage my time around them. I like playing at my pace. I want to be able to drop a game and pick it up again 1 month from now without 'missing out' on anything, or at the very least nothing of significance.
Lunar festival? Fuck off. Some chinese new year event? Shove it in your ass. Unless, of course, you let me access those at my discretion even after they're over.

>Stores with games attached
Its a feeling some games give off, especially f2p ones. That your "game" isn't really a game but an app store designed to make you buy skins, dlcs, emojis and so on. I can forgive a game thats looking to have a constant revenue stream and thus constantly making new skins or whatever. What i can't forgive is designing all your menus - worse yet, the game itself - around selling you that stuff.

>No single player component. At all.
Sometimes i want to just chill or learn the ropes at my own pace. I'm not asking for lenghty campaigns using the game's mechanics, or anything like that. Whatever happend to bots? Some AI to play with or against? Anything to at least let me learn the ways of the game without having to worry about the game's manners or culture or any other bullshit like that. I don't want to get into a match only to be team killed because apparently i wasn't supposed to stray too far off from the squad while i was barely learning the controls.

Naturally i'm not extremely rigid on all of those, but having at least one of them (especially the first 2) makes me far less likely to get a certain game.
On the other hand, i'm more than happy to engage with Multiplayer games - or more commonly Single Player games with Multiplayer components - as long as they don't come with the crap listed above and that i have friends to play it with.

So, yay or nay? Also paging Men_in_Boxes because i want to see chaos.

 

[Valonquar]

As long as voice chat is optional, just pretend it's a single player game with a lot more NPCs.

 

[diffusionx]

I'm tired of MP games with SBMM/forced 50% win rate and progression systems designed by psychologists to keep you addicted. COD multiplayer is just filling up meters. Actually all of them are, they all feel the same at this point.

I want to go back to the days I could go on a server and play it with a bunch of people as long as I wanted.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I'm tired of MP games with SBMM/forced 50% win rate and progression systems designed by psychologists to keep you addicted. COD multiplayer is just filling up meters. Actually all of them are, they all feel the same at this point.

I want to go back to the days I could go on a server and play it with a bunch of people as long as I wanted.

Yeah, its another thing that bothers me, though i kept it out since its somewhat nuanced. I want a no-strings-attached fun, and not feel like i'm grinding on a second job towards some unattainable goal.

Thats why SP games with coop are basically my to-go option for multiplayer these days, stuff like Elden Ring, Divinity OS2, L4D2, some other stuff i'm keeping in the back burner. Just go in, have some unadulterated fun with buddies, get out.

 

[64gigabyteram]

let us be able to host our own servers. not private games or lobbies, FULL SERVERS where people connect to your server to play alongside you.
that's it. A multiplayer game/live service goes from temporary to eternal once you're allowed to create your own servers. until live service developers realize this the entire genre of game will continue to be a temporary fad

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Some foods for thought. I don't play multiplayer games very frequently, but i don't really have anything against the idea of MP in particular.
So i've compiled some of the things that usually put me off from them, and want to see if more people agree.

>Forced internet/server connection
This is a particularly off putting aspect as i feel like i'm not in control of my own product.
"Oh, but you need to be connected to the internet to..." that is a BALD FACED LIE and a notion people need to throw in the trash already. There are tons MP games from the 90s and early 2000s, as well as some modern ones, that can be still be played just fine even if any official server is down and forgotten. Through LANs, private servers, or even just you alone strolling around the map or whatever.

>Excess of limited time events
I HATE games that force me to manage my time around them. I like playing at my pace. I want to be able to drop a game and pick it up again 1 month from now without 'missing out' on anything, or at the very least nothing of significance.
Lunar festival? Fuck off. Some chinese new year event? Shove it in your ass. Unless, of course, you let me access those at my discretion even after they're over.

>Stores with games attached
Its a feeling some games give off, especially f2p ones. That your "game" isn't really a game but an app store designed to make you buy skins, dlcs, emojis and so on. I can forgive a game thats looking to have a constant revenue stream and thus constantly making new skins or whatever. What i can't forgive is designing all your menus - worse yet, the game itself - around selling you that stuff.

>No single player component. At all.
Sometimes i want to just chill or learn the ropes at my own pace. I'm not asking for lenghty campaigns using the game's mechanics, or anything like that. Whatever happend to bots? Some AI to play with or against? Anything to at least let me learn the ways of the game without having to worry about the game's manners or culture or any other bullshit like that. I don't want to get into a match only to be team killed because apparently i wasn't supposed to stray too far off from the squad while i was barely learning the controls.

Naturally i'm not extremely rigid on all of those, but having at least one of them (especially the first 2) makes me far less likely to get a certain game.
On the other hand, i'm more than happy to engage with Multiplayer games - or more commonly Single Player games with Multiplayer components - as long as they don't come with the crap listed above and that i have friends to play it with.

So, yay or nay? Also paging Men_in_Boxes because i want to see chaos.

If I'm you're gaming psychiatrist, I'm putting you on meds before you leave my office. The reasons you listed just don't seem logical to me.

1. There are so many great entertainment experiences out there that you don't "own". Do you go to Creed concerts and complain about how the experience is short lived? No, you just soak in the radness that is 52 year old Scott Stapp. If you're playing a game and thinking "Do I own this or not? Rather than, is this fun?...I don't know what to tell ya.

2. Everything in life is a limited time event. I suppose this connects to your first point. Do you not appreciate the Tulip because it's beauty will fade in a few weeks? Do you not eat desserts because the sweet taste will fade in 15 minutes? I don't understand the need to collect and keep things like Smaug from The Hobbit. Life is too short. Ignore the LTE and appreciate the fun if it's to be had. I can't imagine not enjoying the hundreds of hours I've played of Fortnite (the highest quality of gaming I've ever experienced) because it might not exist in 2035.

3. Yes, stores with games attached are bad. I've personally not played one of those so try to avoid bad multiplayer games like you avoid bad single player games.

4. No single player component at all. Multiplayer is making a ton of progress here. Open world, long arc, sandbox multiplayer is giving players better and better solo experiences.

60% of the core gaming market is multiplayer nowadays. In 5 years, that number will grow to 80% because multiplayer has matured out of its infancy (arena shooter) phase. Will you be in that 80%? Possibly.

Thank you for creating a multiplayer thread Guilty_AI You're one of the good one's.

 

[Antwix]

>No single player component. At all.
Sometimes i want to just chill or learn the ropes at my own pace. I'm not asking for lenghty campaigns using the game's mechanics, or anything like that. Whatever happend to bots? Some AI to play with or against? Anything to at least let me learn the ways of the game without having to worry about the game's manners or culture or any other bullshit like that. I don't want to get into a match only to be team killed because apparently i wasn't supposed to stray too far off from the squad while i was barely learning the controls.

Terrorist Hunt in the old Rainbow 6 games were amazing in this regard. I played Siege for like a few hours and I know they have it but it's like a watered down 1 map version which sucks. I really wish more games did something similar.

 

[Tell’em Keb]

I just want the full gears of war 1 experience back.

-Lobbies where host selects the map rotation and other modifications.
-Players choose sides
-Host confirms all is good, then begins match
-Players die and have their own dead room to discuss/bitch/moan
-Match ends, next map automatically loads up with same teams. Don’t like the teams, drop and find another.
-No party chat. Everyone is in the open chat. You can mute if need be, or not talk at all, but you will hear all that’s going on. Don’t like it, drop out.
-Host can boot players. Take the good with the bad when it comes to that. Yes some are douche bags, but there are many decent players that can manage the task responsibly.

The closest I’ve come to this lately is Hell Let Loose. The chat channels are great. Prox chat is great. Matches kicking over to the next map automatically is great. Being able to be removed for playing like an ass is great. Unfortunately, matches last a long time and players wind up dropping, but the teamwork while it lasts, is amazing.

 

[Guilty_AI]

1. There are so many great entertainment experiences out there that you don't "own". Do you go to Creed concerts and complain about how the experience is short lived? No, you just soak in the radness that is 52 year old Scott Stapp. If you're playing a game and thinking "Do I own this or not? Rather than, is this fun?...I don't know what to tell ya.

2. Everything in life is a limited time event. I suppose this connects to your first point. Do you not appreciate the Tulip because it's beauty will fade in a few weeks? Do you not eat desserts because the sweet taste will fade in 15 minutes? I don't understand the need to collect and keep things like Smaug from The Hobbit. Life is too short. Ignore the LTE and appreciate the fun if it's to be had. I can't imagine not enjoying the hundreds of hours I've played of Fortnite (the highest quality of gaming I've ever experienced) because it might not exist in 2035.

Imagine buying a book, and you can only read chapter 7 through 9 during the next weekend. Thats my problem with limited time events and forced server connections.

3. Yes, stores with games attached are bad. I've personally not played one of those so try to avoid bad multiplayer games like you avoid bad single player games.

Weren't you calling Fortnite the best game ever not too long ago? That was the game that introduced me to the term.

4. No single player component at all. Multiplayer is making a ton of progress here. Open world, long arc, sandbox multiplayer is giving players better and better solo experiences.

You're talking about PvE, and i'm indeed fine with them. My problem is when they're encroached by points 1 and 2 (and 3).
Elden Ring -> ok
Genshin Impact -> not ok

60% of the core gaming market is multiplayer nowadays. In 5 years, that number will grow to 80% because multiplayer has matured out of its infancy (arena shooter) phase. Will you be in that 80%? Possibly.

Lets keep the "number out of our asses" out of this discussion please. Unless you can back those claims with something.

Thank you for creating a multiplayer thread Guilty_AI You're one of the good one's.

Hey, i think your threads are interesting and often bring up good points. The problem is you're too stubborn with your own conclusions, open your mind a bit.

 

[Danjin44]

I dont play MP games because I simply dont like to play with other people, I already socialize outside gaming but gaming is my me time, I dont need anyone interfere with that.

 

[Graciaus]

I don't play online games because I don't have anyone irl to play with anymore. Back when I played with friends everyday on the 360 was amazing but randoms just don't do it for me.

 

[dorkimoe]

As long as voice chat is optional, just pretend it's a single player game with a lot more NPCs.

I really dont understand why all these morons online leave open mic on and yell at their family members or blast music with no regard for anyone else

 

[Guilty_AI]

I dont play MP games because I simply dont like to play with other people, I already socialize outside gaming but gaming is my me time, I dont need anyone interfere with that.

Understandable. I think its a matter of how one learned to socialize. I particularly grew doing LAN parties so its one way i like to spend time with friends.

 

[Roman Empire]

Games forcing you to make an account to access their services is one thing that bothers me more and more as time passes.

Voice-Chat being opt-out is terrible game design and should be abolished.

Games lacking true progression systems because they NEED to sell you a fucking Season Pass + Daily Login Bonus bullshit is aggravating to my enjoyment. Getting fed up GaaS games.

Games that can't simply implement a casual playlist without Skill-based matchmaking into account.

Cash Shop being 80%+ of the cosmetics you can get in the game while there is no push for cool cosmetics/items that are awesome and can only be obtained by grinding the hardest activities.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Imagine buying a book, and you can only read chapter 7 through 9 during the next weekend. Thats my problem with limited time events and forced server connections.

Asking games to be more limited (like books) is baffling to me. I haven't watched a Fortnite LTE in years and there is 0 part of me thinking I'm missing anything remotely of value. Multiplayer game designers would never create a LTE that's as important as "chapters 7 - 9 in a book" because that would piss off the player base. They're silly gimmicks that are mildly entertaining if you're 12.

It's like going to a basketball court and not wanting to play because two weeks ago some famous NBA player shot around for a bit and you missed it. Jackie Chan confused face.

Weren't you calling Fortnite the best game ever not too long ago? That was the game that introduced me to the term.

I can't remember the last time I even thought about the Fortnite shop. Literally 100% of my play experience is focused on gameplay. If you feel you're spending more time in the Fortnite eshop than you are playing the Battle Royale, you've become an Adam Sandler movie side character. It's like being trapped in a paper bag. Just exit out of the eshop and play the game!

You can be introduced to terms without accepting the idea.

Elden Ring -> ok
Genshin Impact -> not ok

No, what I'm saying is there are stress levels in multiplayer. Now that multiplayer has gone open world, you're more likely to see games where you go "Wait, they'll let me do that off over there? Maybe I'll check that game out."

Lets keep the "number out of our asses" out of this discussion please. Unless you can back those claims with something.

Just look at revenue metrics, Steamcharts, XBox Live Most played. The trend of multiplayer outpacing single player has been happening for years. It's not slowing or stopping anytime soon.

If anything multiplayer is probably at 80% today and will be 90%+ in a few short years.

Hey, i think your threads are interesting and often bring up good points. The problem is you're too stubborn with your own conclusions, open your mind a bit.

I create those threads to have my opinion challenged. I actually like being wrong. However, what ends up happening is me turning into Steven Seagal giving akido demonstrations and tossing everyone on the floor.

My NeoGAF power level is 10,000.

 

[cash_longfellow]

I would play more multiplayer games if they were single player.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

>Forced internet/server connection
This is a particularly off putting aspect as i feel like i'm not in control of my own product.
"Oh, but you need to be connected to the internet to..." that is a BALD FACED LIE and a notion people need to throw in the trash already. There are tons MP games from the 90s and early 2000s, as well as some modern ones, that can be still be played just fine even if any official server is down and forgotten. Through LANs, private servers, or even just you alone strolling around the map or whatever.

It's not really a lie, you're getting something else in return.
those mp games that allowed self hosting were also far more prone to crazy hacks and cheats and losing all your progress if you lost your save file, connection errors/latency were rampant as well.
Sure it's not impossible, but it's not strictly a lie either.

 

[ZoukGalaxy]

This is the only way to love MP for me:

*playing all together in the same room in a LAN party with real friends*

Yeah, I know:

 

[Elitro]

Multiplayer is fine. It just depends on the implementation.

When done right (optional and non intrusive) it can even enhance the single player experience. Ex: Elden Ring with player's deaths replay or just messages with memes, or Returnal where you can avenge other player deaths to get resources.

Of course this is all subjective, but i like to not feel alone when playing more intense games

 

[Guilty_AI]

Asking games to be more limited (like books) is baffling to me. I haven't watched a Fortnite LTE in years and there is 0 part of me thinking I'm missing anything remotely of value. Multiplayer game designers would never create a LTE that's as important as "chapters 7 - 9 in a book" because that would piss off the player base. They're silly gimmicks that are mildly entertaining if you're 12.

I'm the one asking for flexibility and you're saying that makes them more limited

It's like going to a basketball court and not wanting to play because two weeks ago some famous NBA player shot around for a bit and you missed it. Jackie Chan confused face.

Heres the thing, there are physical real world reasons for there to exist those limits there.

There are no physical real world reasons to stop you from accessing some winter solstice event inside a software whenever you want. Its artificial scarcity.

I can't remember the last time I even thought about the Fortnite shop. Literally 100% of my play experience is focused on gameplay. If you feel you're spending more time in the Fortnite eshop than you are playing the Battle Royale, you've become an Adam Sandler movie side character. It's like being trapped in a paper bag. Just exit out of the eshop and play the game!

All i read here is that you learned to tune it out at some point. Its fair enough, and one of the reasons this is a lesser complaint compared to the previous. Its still annoying and bothersome though.

You can be introduced to terms without accepting the idea.

Indeed, its still annoying and bothersome though, and makes me less likely to invest in a game.

No, what I'm saying is there are stress levels in multiplayer. Now that multiplayer has gone open world, you're more likely to see games where you go "Wait, they'll let me do that off over there? Maybe I'll check that game out."

uh, i fail to see how that is anything new. Both multiplayer and single player (especially single player) already had that for decades.

Just look at revenue metrics, Steamcharts, XBox Live Most played. The trend of multiplayer outpacing single player has been happening for years. It's not slowing or stopping anytime soon.

If anything multiplayer is probably at 80% today and will be 90%+ in a few short years.

The trend those charts show are a very selected few at the top that are exclusively multiplayer, while the vast majority of the rest are games that are either single-player or a mixed breed of multiplayer+single player.

If anything, single player games with multiplayer components, or multiplayer games that can be played in single player seem to be the trend.

I create those threads to have my opinion challenged. I actually like being wrong. However, what ends up happening is me turning into Steven Seagal giving akido demonstrations and tossing everyone on the floor.

My NeoGAF power level is 10,000.

Your opinions have been objectively proven wrong many times already. You kept being tossed on the floor over and over again only to get back up and pretend nothing happened. Thats what i meant by being stubborn.

Wanna make an experiment? Go see the top 200 most played games on steam and tell me how many of those are exclusively multiplayer. As in you absolutely need other players to be able to play them. If you don't keep burying your head in the sand you'll realize whats the real trend here, and maybe what people really want out of games, and why some of your ideas on where gaming is heading are absolutely nonsensical.

 

[Guilty_AI]

It's not really a lie, you're getting something else in return.
those mp games that allowed self hosting were also far more prone to crazy hacks and cheats and losing all your progress if you lost your save file, connection errors/latency were rampant as well.
Sure it's not impossible, but it's not strictly a lie either.

You can have both

 

[KXVXII9X]

At this time in my life, I am wanting to play less and less multiplayer games. I don't play games regularly and depression is a pain, and I can go months without playing a lot of my games. I just want to focus on more games that don't require so much of a time investment or games I can take breaks to and come back later. I will sometimes play a game or three of Brawl Stars on my phone or a multiplayer game I can play in really short sessions. Those I wouldn't mind more of. I also still enjoy party games and some Co-Op. I also adore the Splatoon games.

 

[rodrigolfp]

Only LAN don't force internet connection.

Only dedicated server that will have their plugs pulled bothers me. Patch your freaking game to have P2P before you end your servers.

The rest doesn't bother me in nothing.

 

[Kindela]

let us be able to host our own servers. not private games or lobbies, FULL SERVERS where people connect to your server to play alongside you.
that's it. A multiplayer game/live service goes from temporary to eternal once you're allowed to create your own servers. until live service developers realize this the entire genre of game will continue to be a temporary fad

Wouldn't you need access to the game's server code in that case?

 

[Lucifers Beard]

I'm tired of MP games with SBMM/forced 50% win rate and progression systems designed by psychologists to keep you addicted. COD multiplayer is just filling up meters. Actually all of them are, they all feel the same at this point.

I want to go back to the days I could go on a server and play it with a bunch of people as long as I wanted.

COD multiplayer is an exercise in frustration. You're spot on with it being there to just fill up meters too. Halo 2 was peak matchmaking for me, although I'm probably remembering that being better than it really was.

 

[cinnamonandgravy]

i only play mp naked

 

[Guilty_AI]

Wouldn't you need access to the game's server code in that case?

No, just tools to make creating custom servers possible.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I'm the one asking for flexibility and you're saying that makes them more limited


Heres the thing, there are physical real world reasons for there to exist those limits there.

It's all the same to the end user.

There are no physical real world reasons to stop you from accessing some winter solstice event inside a software whenever you want. Its artificial scarcity.

It's all the same to the end user.

All i read here is that you learned to tune it out at some point. Its fair enough, and one of the reasons this is a lesser complaint compared to the previous. Its still annoying and bothersome though.

Ignoring digital areas isn't some skill I developed from Mr Miyagi. When I walk into a mall I don't have to concentrate to reach my preferred destination. When I walk into an arena, I don't have to clench my butt cheeks to avoid the Pro Shop. If you need to learn how to avoid an eshop tab when the game itself is two r1 clicks away...I don't know what to tell you.

"I'd like to play Fortnite but I'm compelled to spend all my time in the eshop" is such a strange argument.

Indeed, its still annoying and bothersome though, and makes me less likely to invest in a game.

Having a little brother poke you on the shoulder while repeating a silly phrase in your ear is annoying and bothersome. A tab that I never think about is...irrelevant.

uh, i fail to see how that is anything new. Both multiplayer and single player (especially single player) already had that for decades.

Notice you said "especially single player".

Single player used to have huge competitive advantages over multiplayer. Telling a 10, 20, 40 hour story was exclusive to the SP space for 40+ years. Now mainstream multiplayer games have the technology and design knowledge to do something similar (only better) and that's contributing to multiplayers relatively recent market dominance.

Here's why you should be scared. Multiplayer game developers have just started playing around with this concept. Single player game developers have had a monopoly on the concept for 40 years.

Where do you think the surge in growth is going to come from? Things aren't even close to leveling out.

The trend those charts show are a very selected few at the top that are exclusively multiplayer, while the vast majority of the rest are games that are either single-player or a mixed breed of multiplayer+single player.

Um, steamcharts and xbox live most played charts show, overwhelmingly, that todays most popular games are multiplayer. The fact that you're trying to grab all the way down to #200 on these charts shows a degree of desperation. There's 1 person playing the 200th ranked game on Steam. There's 800k playing CSGO (multiplayer).

That being said, it's possible 400k of those players are playing the SP tutorial portion over and over...

If anything, single player games with multiplayer components, or multiplayer games that can be played in single player seem to be the trend.

Lol, wut?

Your opinions have been objectively proven wrong many times already. You kept being tossed on the floor over and over again only to get back up and pretend nothing happened. Thats what i meant by being stubborn.

I'll cede points when good points are made. My wisdom and maturity forces me to acknowledge truth.

Wanna make an experiment? Go see the top 200 most played games on steam and tell me how many of those are exclusively multiplayer. As in you absolutely need other players to be able to play them. If you don't keep burying your head in the sand you'll realize whats the real trend here, and maybe what people really want out of games, and why some of your ideas on where gaming is heading are absolutely nonsensical.

There's too much evidence to entertain your theory.

PlayStation went from 0 AAA multiplayer exclusives during the entirety of the PS4 generation to investing more into MP than SP by 2024.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.benzinga.com/amp/content/29875882

There are no big single player publishers anymore. Who's the biggest? Sega? Even they're pursuing GAAS strategies for their big budget titles.

It's no longer deniable. It's time to start understanding why one game type is flourishing while the other has seemingly stalled.

 

[TheInfamousKira]

I don't like it for a plethora of reasons, which can be summarized as "I hate being beholden to people,"

Start a match in a new game. You suck because you're new. Nah, you suck because you suck.

Start a new match with what ends up being a room of 14 year olds who suck because they're kids. But nah, you suck for being old.

Start a match after you get home from work, finished errands, cooking, etc. No one you know is on because your best crew is in a different time zone and get their game in four hours ago. You suck because you're clearly not a team player.

Start a match with a new guy. You lose. Repeatedly. Turns out you suck because you're supposed to be the PL vet dude.

Now, another scenario.

I come home, turn on a single player game. Pause when I want to. Play when I want to. No one ganking me or stealing my shit or cheating in my server, no scheduled down time, no 12 year olds screaming about fucking my mom last night. SO GOOD.

 

[64gigabyteram]

There are no big single player publishers anymore. Who's the biggest? Sega? Even they're pursuing GAAS strategies for their big budget titles.

..... literally the vast majority of game publishers? Capcom, Arc system works, ubisoft, nintendo, sony, MS, etc etc etc the vast majority of gaming publishers primarily publish SP titles. MP titles are more popular yes but that's because they're primarily free to play and can also be used as an avenue for social interaction I.E Roblox
there are less of them being made in comparison to singleplayer games and they hardly ever succeed

Pause when I want to.

not in souls games

 

[TheInfamousKira]

not in souls games

Well met, indeed.

 

[kyussman]

I'd play more of them if other people weren't running around in my game......oh wait,that's a single player game.....yea,those are the ones I enjoy.#Stayoutofmygame.

 

[Kindela]

No, just tools to make creating custom servers possible.

Someone still needs to maintain those servers from time to time. And whoever has access to them, has access to the server code running on them (in some form). Which means that the developers would have to be the ones maintaining them.

 

[64gigabyteram]

Someone still needs to maintain those servers from time to time

which, in this case, would be the people with PCs hosting the servers. not the developers

have you played games where you can host a server on your PC locally? there's no connections or server source code required at all. in Minecraft all you need to do is portforward, download the minecraft server application, and just.... run your server. no connections to Mojang/MS servers at all. it's all from your own computer and internet connection

 

[kicker]

Ignoring digital areas isn't some skill I developed from Mr Miyagi. When I walk into a mall I don't have to concentrate to reach my preferred destination. When I walk into an arena, I don't have to clench my butt cheeks to avoid the Pro Shop. If you need to learn how to avoid an eshop tab when the game itself is two r1 clicks away...I don't know what to tell you.

"I'd like to play Fortnite but I'm compelled to spend all my time in the eshop" is such a strange argument.

Not to butt in, but I think you don't understand that (to people who primarily play sp) these are completely separate experiences of play in terms of immersion.
For example, just on the topic of landing menus:

In a sp game the main menu is mentally filtered. Usually, the only things to look at are the 'load game' and 'settings' options, and you look at them for 2 seconds before you get into the game. It's sort of like a portal before you emerge into another world.

To me, with mp games the main menu is very much an involved process. The 'game' has already started once you get there. There are loadouts, daily challenges, login rewards, servers to choose, eshops, etc. And once you get into the game lobby, it's usually people and systems actively reminding you that you're playing with other people playing a game. It's not a world you're in, it's a lobby to dick around in for a few seconds before the match starts. And because there's usually no continuity or fixed identity between matches, the faux anonymity brings the worst out in people. And the destination has far less escapism as a result.
There are exceptions, most co-op focused games and extraction shooters like hunt are usually more grounded

It's analogous to being immersed into a good book versus taking part in an amateur stage play with half-serious actors; both very fun, but one has far more escapism to offer.
Most people (including myself) just play mp games as they are, reduced escapism and all, but you really should try to appreciate why the experiences are different to a lot of people, and why those people might prefer a more controlled, immersive experience. There's fun to be had with mp, It's just a different kind of fun at its core.

 

[Kindela]

which, in this case, would be the people with PCs hosting the servers. not the developers

have you played games where you can host a server on your PC locally? there's no connections or server source code required at all. in Minecraft all you need to do is portforward, download the minecraft server application, and just.... run your server. no connections to Mojang/MS servers at all. it's all from your own computer and internet connection

True, but I am not sure how many games nowadays come with the server code bundled with the client (game) code. Or that developers would have a separate server app for you to download and host.

But anyway, I see what you mean

 

[Guilty_AI]

It's all the same to the end user.


It's all the same to the end user.

Clearly not to me and other people.

Ignoring digital areas isn't some skill I developed from Mr Miyagi. When I walk into a mall I don't have to concentrate to reach my preferred destination. When I walk into an arena, I don't have to clench my butt cheeks to avoid the Pro Shop. If you need to learn how to avoid an eshop tab when the game itself is two r1 clicks away...I don't know what to tell you.

"I'd like to play Fortnite but I'm compelled to spend all my time in the eshop" is such a strange argument.

Its like ads on netflix shows, or TV commercials. Its annoying, takes me out of the experience, and if i can choose not to have them i will.

Notice you said "especially single player".

Single player used to have huge competitive advantages over multiplayer. Telling a 10, 20, 40 hour story was exclusive to the SP space for 40+ years. Now mainstream multiplayer games have the technology and design knowledge to do something similar (only better) and that's contributing to multiplayers relatively recent market dominance.

Here's why you should be scared. Multiplayer game developers have just started playing around with this concept. Single player game developers have had a monopoly on the concept for 40 years.

Where do you think the surge in growth is going to come from? Things aren't even close to leveling out.

You speak as if those are separate developers. I told you to do your research, about 3/4 of the most 200 played games on steam have both single and multi player focus. And the number of players on them aren't few.

Um, steamcharts and xbox live most played charts show, overwhelmingly, that todays most popular games are multiplayer. The fact that you're trying to grab all the way down to #200 on these charts shows a degree of desperation. There's 1 person playing the 200th ranked game on Steam. There's 800k playing CSGO (multiplayer).

There are 3000-5000 people playing the 200th most played game on steam, daily. Thats why you do research instead of just relying on gut feelings, the market is much bigger than the bubble you're part of.

Do you think developers will just keep trying to immitate whatever the popular trend is at the moment, just to fail against some giant? No, the smart ones don't look at whats at the center of the square, they look at the borders... and those that do tend to be greatly rewarded.

Lol, wut?

Like i said, do your research.

I'll cede points when good points are made. My wisdom and maturity forces me to acknowledge truth.

yet it refuses to look at objective evidence.

There's too much evidence to entertain your theory.

Sounds like you're afraid of something

PlayStation went from 0 AAA multiplayer exclusives during the entirety of the PS4 generation to investing more into MP than SP by 2024.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.benzinga.com/amp/content/29875882

There are no big single player publishers anymore. Who's the biggest? Sega? Even they're pursuing GAAS strategies for their big budget titles.

GAAS? We're talking about single x multiplayer here. And if we're talking about the biggest one in terms of amount of games, money and quality, probably Nintendo.

 

[EDMIX]

I dont play MP games because I simply dont like to play with other people, I already socialize outside gaming but gaming is my me time, I dont need anyone interfere with that.

True, but not all MP is playing with people, some times its playing against lol

Even with the thousands of hours I put in MP games each gen, I actually don't socialize 99.9% of the time on them. Granted I've scaled back my MP gaming greatly in the recent years. I just play BF series now and maybe I might put another IP there in the future like if The Finals is any good, but for most part 95% of what I play is single player theses days, so when I do play online, I'm generally not socializing lol

 

[Danjin44]

True, but not all MP is playing with people, some times its playing against lol

Even with the thousands of hours I put in MP games each gen, I actually don't socialize 99.9% of the time on them. Granted I've scaled back my MP gaming greatly in the recent years. I just play BF series now and maybe I might put another IP there in the future like if The Finals is any good, but for most part 95% of what I play is single player theses days, so when I do play online, I'm generally not socializing lol

I personally just don’t see the point especially after PS3 you have subscription fee for online play……no thanks.

 

[Lasha]

Lan servers are all I really agree with in your OP. Lets be real though, very few mainstream gamers would bother with the hassle of maintaining a server or finding a server that suits their needs. Gamers are conditioned to having fun fed to them. Searching for a server with space that doesn't have players who will mulch you isn't popular. The demand for "progression" mechanics also hampers private servers since the point of private servers is to have custom rule sets tailored to the community rather than vanilla. Players consider progression mechanics "content". Their desire must be sated.

I'm ambivalent towards limited time events. I don't want battlepasses to be a full time job so I play without the "premium" pass until I get to the point where I will get the purchase price back. I tune out most limited time events. The ones in Halo are really easy to finish through normal play. I only realized Halo infinite had a limited event after completing it. Fortnite is the gold standard IMO since the big events are easy to finish (usually 5 simple quests) and ample notice is given. Not many live service games lock actual game play behind limited time events. The idea is wasteful since it limits the return on investment from creating assets or mechanics.

I understand the want for PVE. Playing and losing against players can be intimidating. Bot only modes do a poor job of teaching you how to actually play a multiplayer game. The AI is never a challenge and seldom replicates the techniques and meta of real players. Its always better to play against real people. The exception is the way BR games have started placing players in mixed bot matches when they first start playing. The games let new or rusty players learn the map and guns while giving a bit of challenge towards the end when you face the few other players. I think the solution only works with BR or other random games since adding an AI teammate to a game like CS is basically auto loss.

 

[Griffon]

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Clearly not to me and other people.


Its like ads on netflix shows, or TV commercials. Its annoying, takes me out of the experience, and if i can choose not to have them i will.

No. It's like ads on a different channel you have to click to in order to purchase cosmetic content. It doesn't interrupt play sessions like commercials on TV traditionally do.

Unless of course, you're a comedic character in an Adam Sandler movie who can't figure out how to leave an eshop.

You speak as if those are separate developers. I told you to do your research, about 3/4 of the most 200 played games on steam have both single and multi player focus. And the number of players on them aren't few.

What you're doing is looking at the least popular games on Steam, which is a weak debate strategy. People overwhelmingly play multiplayer only games. Additionally, trends are recent. Which big multiplayer games coming out at the end of this year and 2024 are SP + MP? I suspect far more are MP only.

There are 3000-5000 people playing the 200th most played game on steam, daily. Thats why you do research instead of just relying on gut feelings, the market is much bigger than the bubble you're part of.

That's still only 6% of players on Steam playing SP, while 94% are playing multiplayer. The ratio wasn't that lopsided in 1993 or 2003. The trend continues in one direction.

Do you think developers will just keep trying to immitate whatever the popular trend is at the moment, just to fail against some giant? No, the smart ones don't look at whats at the center of the square, they look at the borders... and those that do tend to be greatly rewarded.

Let me know when any big publishers are spending more money on SP than MP. Right now you're squarely in wishful thinking mode.

GAAS? We're talking about single x multiplayer here. And if we're talking about the biggest one in terms of amount of games, money and quality, probably Nintendo.

Nintendo does seem to be the one company that's doing SP+MP with a lot of their big games...and even then...they seem to be placing a bigger and bigger emphasis on MP.

 

[BossLackey]

I'm tired of MP games with SBMM/forced 50% win rate and progression systems designed by psychologists to keep you addicted. COD multiplayer is just filling up meters. Actually all of them are, they all feel the same at this point.

I want to go back to the days I could go on a server and play it with a bunch of people as long as I wanted.

Yeah, this shit is reaaaaally getting old. Seems any large studio MP release is like this. Feels so artificial.

Online multiplayer games of old felt more like a sandbox. Now they're so tightly controlled and you can just feel the strings being pulled by the grubby hands of the publisher.

They're following a strict playbook to maximize profits and time played and I fucking hate it. I hate it so much.

 

[EDMIX]

I personally just don’t see the point especially after PS3 you have subscription fee for online play……no thanks.

Fun, its called Fun Dan lol

Thats like saying I don't see the point of you playing RPGs and you have to pay for em? lol "no thanks" lol

It would be like me questioning someone who plays MMOs, they are paying monthly? why? /s

Cause they like it Dan. You don't need to like it too, but I'm 99.9% sure you can understand that people pay for things they feel are fun.

 

[Zephyrus0]

I absolutely despise having my success in anything being dependant on others.
Plus I played league of legends for 4 years.
So no, I wouldn't play more multiplayer games.

 

[Guilty_AI]

What you're doing is looking at the least popular games on Steam, which is a weak debate strategy. People overwhelmingly play multiplayer only games. Additionally, trends are recent. Which big multiplayer games coming out at the end of this year and 2024 are SP + MP? I suspect far more are MP only.

Those aren't the "least popular games on steam" mate

That's still only 6% of players on Steam playing SP, while 94% are playing multiplayer. The ratio wasn't that lopsided in 1993 or 2003. The trend continues in one direction.

Peehh wrong. Calculate again. Hint, the total players playing all those "least popular games" should easily surpass 2 million.

Let me know when any big publishers are spending more money on SP than MP. Right now you're squarely in wishful thinking mode.

Let me know when we have more commercially successful multiplayer titles than single player titles. I could easily name over 100 successful SP or SP+MP titles from the last 5-6 years. How many successful MP games can you name from the same period?

Nintendo does seem to be the one company that's doing SP+MP with a lot of their big games...and even then...they seem to be placing a bigger and bigger emphasis on MP.

Sure, we all know Tears of the Kingdom will be a very successful multiplayer title..

 

[Danjin44]

Fun, its called Fun Dan lol

Thats like saying I don't see the point of you playing RPGs and you have to pay for em? lol "no thanks" lol

It would be like me questioning someone who plays MMOs, they are paying monthly? why? /s

Cause they like it Dan. You don't need to like it too, but I'm 99.9% sure you can understand that people pay for things they feel are fun.

I mostly talking about for myself, for me I don’t see the point.

 

[BrutalTruth_]

Personally I hate battle passes and it's one of the reasons I've stopped gaming online

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Those aren't the "least popular games on steam" mate


Peehh wrong. Calculate again. Hint, the total players playing all those "least popular games" should easily surpass 2 million.

I did. 333 million multiplayer gamers and 2 million single player gamers. That's a 94:6 ratio. Statistics don't lie.

Let me know when we have more commercially successful multiplayer titles than single player titles. I could easily name over 100 successful SP or SP+MP titles from the last 5-6 years. How many successful MP games can you name from the same period?

There will always be more single player games because they're easier to make and sell. There will never be a time when the industry is investing more in SP over MP. We've crossed the Rubicon there.

Sure, we all know Tears of the Kingdom will be a very successful multiplayer title..

Well, it won't sell half as well as Mario Kart or Animal Crossing. And I'm waaaaay more confident Zelda eventually adds MP than I am Nintendo remove MP from one of their juggernaut IPs.

What are we discussing again? What's the debate? We can keep quote posting eachother but I no longer know the position you're defending here.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I did. 333 million multiplayer gamers and 2 million single player gamers. That's a 94:6 ratio. Statistics don't lie.

Wait, did you just compare monthly players with daily concurrent players? No wonder it always sound you're making up numbers out of thin air.

What are we discussing again? What's the debate? We can keep quote posting eachother but I no longer know the position you're defending here.

Mixed breed MP+SP is the future. You deny that position because a very small selection of MP exclusive games happened to gain tons of success, but you keep refusing to look at the whole picture and pulling out numbers out of nowhere, usually to claim shit like Pax Dei is the future.

There will always be more single player games because they're easier to make and sell. There will never be a time when the industry is investing more in SP over MP. We've crossed the Rubicon there.

Quite the opposite. SP games are harder to make (though that depends on a ton of factors), but much much easier to sell as you don't need to rely on an active player base.

And a correction. Big publishers aren't investing more in multiplayer, they're investing more in GAAS. And not any GAAS, specific breeds of it as GAAS can come in many forms. Usually single player titles with some PvE and PvP components.