Is Multiplayer A Must Have For Single Player Franchises These Days?

Junkie Monkeys: Before we get into the topic at hand, take a trip back in time with me. Remember when great single player franchises existed without meaningless multiplayer modes? Remember when awesome single player franchises didn’t need multiplayer to stay relevant? I remember those days well.

[Treezy504]

I would honestly want more games like Demon's Souls (Yes I know Dark Souls exist). Such an awesomely brutal single player experience and a unique online experience. Co-op with a twist is all I need to make me happy.

[brodychet]

Yeah I liked Dark Souls' (Notice I didn't say Demon Souls) multiplayer. They don't all have to be Team-based Capture the flag.

[3-4-5]

Multiplayer helps extend the longevity of a game for some people.

After beating a game in 20 hours, some people don't want to play the same thing over again especially if it's reliant on story.

This way, with multiplayer, you get a different experience within the same game, using the same game mechanics as the single player, but with a bit of variation.

[ravinash]

Yes, but don't attach multiplayer on just for the sake of it.
Nothing worse than taking resources away form the single player game just to create something people will use once and then say no, thats rubbish and never use again.

[zeal0us]

Publisher nowadays want to get the most out of their games. Multiplayer offer a chance for extra revenue with map packs, weapons packs and characters packs.

Honestly I don't think some single player franchises need multiplayer but if you're going to add MP to these games at least do it right. We already have enough MP games on the market that follows the CoD formula or just some rush crap the publishers or developers hoped they could milk dlc from.

[wedgie]

Agreed. I would also think that publishers/developers use it as a way to deter people from trading their games in as well, in addition to the extra revenue.

If there is a multiplayer you can keep playing, you would not have to get rid of the game.

[admiralvic]

It's to trick people into thinking it's a better value than it is.

If the game is SP only, then it comes down to how much time you're willing to put into the game. Maybe 10 hours for the campaign, 20 for the platinum, 50 if you really love it, but that's about it.

If the game has MP, then you can do all the stuff mentioned before AND play with all your buddies online. They can further release more DLC to keep people playing and you're talking about how good of a value it is. Also, since a lot of games reward experience with skills and power ups, you have a less enjoyable experience the older the game gets.

Take a fighting game. If you play it on day 1, then there are a lot of people of various skill levels online. Play it 6 months later and you might find some noobs, but most people will have some skills. Play it a year later and you BETTER have some skill cause there is almost no noobs playing.

[PrimeGrime]

Why are all these people making a big deal of this simply because the Wii U version didn't get multiplayer. Now all the sudden people are questioning if multiplayer is necessary in single player franchises.

Multiplayer is never necessary but if it can be done right, why the hell not? It adds replay value, gives people a chance to play thier favorite single play game with some friends, they can charge for more DLC.. It just makes no sense not to have it.

If it is just added for nothing and really is crappy then yes, like AC3: Liberations for instance, no offense I mean I know some people enjoy card games but that is a good example of a unnecessary online part being added to a game.

[Cam977]

Please don't bring up AC3:L.
I monotonously slaved myself through that absolutely shocking "multiplayer" mode to level 15. There's a reason that game hasn't touched my Vita since I received the platinum trophy for it.

[PrimeGrime]

Well that is exactly why I brought it up. In some circumstances it isn't needed but Batman Arkhams mutliplayer I doubt will be anywhere near as tacked on as that was.

[PrimeGrime]

Oh lord I brought up the Wii U guess people got all touchy. Even though everything I said made complete sense.

[The_Sneauxman]

I think an incorporation of online features seamlessly with Single Player could prove useful if Multiplayer would seem like a Gimmick.
I would much prefer Online features mixed with Singleplayer rather than Multiplayer because "We just have to"

[PeEsFour]

No, but if the MP is good, its not wrong. Good example is TLOU. SP focused game but the MP is awesome too.

[AngelicIceDiamond]

No but devs feel the need to opt into it. At least put in Co op, Co op in single player games is way more interesting than MP.

[dcj0524]

No. But if it's done right sure.

[Kevlar009]

The simple answer to the article is no. Metroid Prime and Bioshock were amazing and they had no MP, I play them ever so often because the single player is so memorable. The problem with Multiplayer is when it takes away from the single-player, or when you have a game like CoD where the mulitplayer is the bulk of the experience, if the multiplayer doesn't excite and the story is nothing special you have a dull game.

While a good single-player is timeless many mulitplayer centered games live as long as the multiplayer does, within a year a CoD game becomes mostly obsolete because the experience moves on to the next game's multiplayer. Imo a great multiplayer is easier than a great single-player. A great multiplayer needs to be balanced, fun, and full of variety, single-player requires story, length, and innoative level design and Characters

However, if you do include multiplayer make it so every version has multiplayer, dont take it out and charge full price.

[BXbomber]

Bioshock infinite was a good game but after i beat the game it was just .....there, I haven't touched it since beating it. Now that we are getting DLC for it FINALLY and its single player DLC after I beat it guess what its gonna be there just...there. If the mp of a game thats usually single player is done right hell yea i mean if not I still would give it a go. I hate all these people who claim "ohh hell naw mp in my single player games?" ya act like you guys play the single player every so often for what? to replay the story of a game over and over again? yea thats ok years from now and I get mp won't be around that long but still I'm opened to having mp to any games honestly.

[BLAKHOODe]

I hate tacked on MP; why not use that extra data to add more to the campaign? Arkham Asylum and Arkham City were GREAT games without MP, why "fix" what isn't broken?

[shibster88]

Id rather play online online than single player

[Indo]

MP is a great plus for any single player game. But where's Co-Op mode. Almost every great game coming out is without local MP, I miss GTA SA Co-Op. It can't be that hard to just add another user to the chaos.

[andrewer]

Not to me, I prefer a well-worked SP.

[pop-voxuli]

As long as the single player part IS NOT gimped and is the MAIN focus then I don't mind.

[slyleo2001]

One thing I dislike about Multiplayer in a game that is not done well, is when they link trophies to it. With all the great multiplayer out there it's too easy for the online community to die for some of these games making the Platinum trophies sometimes almost impossible to get.

[nick309]

Its done by an external developer, so it wont harm the sp experience, more devs need to do this !

[pabadamus1]

My short and long answer is no and yes. No. I don't play multiplayer even after the single player campaign in shooters. Yes. Only for the sake of what appears to be the consensus out there. The market has determined that multiplayer is integral to what is now considered a complete game.

[Red_Devilz]

Recycled article.

Here is the recent one: http://n4g.com/news/1323294...

[SgtClutch117]

I personally believe that single player games should contain a multiplayer because you beat the game in like 2-5 days (games like Bioshock Infinite, last of us, tomb raider). After that you're like, well i guess i should go for achievements/trophies. then the game collects dust and you play it once in a blue moon.

[Master-H]

No it's not a must have, but as long as it's doesnt feel tacked on like Tomb Raider MP then bring it on, the more replay value the better.for instance Dark Souls MP is fantastic , TLOU mp is awesome, i dont like AC mp but at least it's different , i hear Gow Ascension MP is awesome , RDR and GTA have cool MPs too.

[mochachino]

For most SP centric games I think it should be a must not have. Put the resources towards the SP. Most people just check out the Mp because it's there then go back to playing the popular tittles like BF, COD, Halo, Sports games, etc.

[assdan]

No, it's not, but if you don't have multiplayer, you better make one hell of a single player.

[n4rc]

Nope..

Some games I buy just for a single player experience.. BioShock or even batman for example..

[Jagsrock]

Nope don't need it especially in games like Arkham origins/city etc. like others have mentioned Co-Op is a good addition and I think many games can benefit from an additional story driven co-op mode. It's the free for all, capture the flag yada yada yada we don't need.

[blackblades]

Multiplayer is not a must have for single player games I rather have them focus on single player to make it better, and not cut most of content out just to work on multiplayer. DlC usually be focus for multiplayer as well.

[M-M]

To be honest, developers should release single player games and add multiplayer later on. Developers would be able to put 100% focus on the single player, and then add in a multiplayer mode if needed.

[Tdmd]

What a nice idea!

[urwifeminder]

Yeah if they don't want the game forgotten in a week even co op adds more fun a replay value singleplayer is a dying bread.

[brewin]

This game does not need any damn multiplayer. It will just be some tacked on mode anyway and isnt even developed by the team making the game. I really wish devs would stop shoehorning features into games just to have another feature to list on the game box. Seriously,not every game needs a MP component. I will be getting Batman AO on Wii U regardless. Id much rather have some good gamepad integration than some crappy tacked on MP that I will play once and forget about. I do still hope the U version is at least $10 less though, just because Im a cheap ass and want to save where I can!

[Tdmd]

Devs seems to think so. I don't. I rather have a long, polished, single player campaign than a rushed multiplayer component thrown in there just for the sake of it. Give me unlockables and replayability and I'll be grateful enough.

[RedSoakedSponge]

as long as the multiplayer isnt just tacked on and resembles the single player in some way then im happy for multiplayer to be in the package.

problem is a lot of devs just put f*** all time into the multiplayer and make it a stupid tacked on TDM or something similar. IMO this needs to stop now.

A good example of this is the new Tomb Raider. AMAZING single player experience with a stupidly out of place and dull multiplayer experience that IMO just cheapened the whole package.