Are we ready for AAA multiplayer only shooters?

“There is an expectation that all AAA multiplayer shooters on consoles have some kind of story mode – be it a 25 hour epic story with deep characters, or a tacked on seven hour training course for the online component. This fall, Star Wars: Battlefront and Rainbow Six: Siege will both ship without any recognizable single-player story mode. This has raised plenty of concerns about whether or not these two titles will have enough content to keep gamers happy. -- PlayStation Enthusiast

[suckingeggs]

Sorry I been gaming since snes.. Im old skool

Multiplayer only games are not for me I like a good story and single player

Plus Sometimes I don't like being social

[venom06]

multiplayer only games are fine.. hell, the VAST majority of players mainly play multiplayer anyway. Single player is more for the "reviewers" so they have something to talk about. Its not like people play the single player over and over again... they play multiplayer over and over again..

[fanboysmackdown]

You speak for the masses do you? Here to burst your bubble cause I have no use for online shooters and only play fps single player. Halo, Bioshock, Dishonored, The Darkness, Riddick-Escape From Butcher Bay....should I keep going. Your comment sucks.

[BrianOBlivion]

You say that like it's a fact. I primarily play fps and I couldn't give a sh*t about multiplayer in any game. I want a strong narrative, not a bunch of brats "bruh"ing me.

[freshslicepizza]

both of you are wrong, single player games sell well and millions of people also play online. which to me means there is a healthy market for both. yet the louder voice out there seems to be against multiplayer only games, why?

[NukaCola]

I don't like MP personally, so I was happy SW BF had couch split screen co-op, but no campaign is just lazy and I won't invest in this game. I am playing the beta now. Its awesome what potential they have, and a pity it's not what I want. I hope we get a good single player SW game soon.

[OhMyGandhi]

I *really* hope that you are being sarcastic.

[Yui_Suzumiya]

I beg to differ but BioShock 2 and Black Ops was the only mp I ever put any time into.

[_-EDMIX-_]

@Moldy- Agree. icheerboth- I mean...you don't speak for all gamers either bud, neither of you do.

People want both, as to why BOTH exist. You crying about TF2 not having a single player? Millions don't care bud, that is not what they are their for, that is like watching a horror film then crying to the director that it didn't have enough love sequences...I mean at some point some of you really need get that BOTH exist for 2 DIFFERENT REASONS!

I swear I never though I would have to even say such a thing on here smh.

@Nuka- https://www.youtube.com/wat...

"SW BF had couch split screen co-op, but no campaign is just lazy"

Not sure what you mean bud, it has an offline single player, they are merely calling it missions and NOT campaign as its not what they call such things for Battlefield so they aer not calling it taht for Battlefront, mind you...Battlefront's missions are what they were in BF1 and BF2 merely not called "campaign" actually look up, read exactly what it is before saying it doesn't have one.

Pretty sure I'm playing it RIGHT NOW and it has a story, has voice acting etc JUST LIKE BF1 and BF2 ,stop reading what others are saying and spreading misinformation actually find out for yourself bud (bu...but listen to me though lol)

If your playing the beta, get out of MP and try survival, its merely what BF1 and BF2's campaign was in a different name.

Mission briefing, voice acting, bots, objectives etc, its very much the same.

[Gazondaily]

If single player only games are fine why aren't multiplayer only games??

[BattleAxe]

I love a great single player game, I love co-op and I love great multiplayer, but it's the best when they all come in one package like GRAW2, Rainbow Six Vegas 1&2 and most of the Call of Duty games.

[Volkama]

Fully support developers focusing on delivering the game they want to make and play, rather than ticking all the boxes on a checklist.

Of course I also fully support publishers pricing those games according to the value of the content, so where a game feels light on content it should also be lighter on the wallet.

[Peace_Love_and_FPS]

Edmix-: http://i.imgur.com/pBrD4qg.... (I just had to, bud)

In all seriousness I agree, people want different kinds of games and calling it lazy when they're using so much market data to decide if people will buy it without the campaign is just plain ignorant.

Everyone else (except Septic and Volkama): Face it, not every game is for you, they're saving time on a part of the game which a large amount of their customer base barely plays in order to focus on what they do play.

We'll see if it's truly worth it or if it is a big factor for replay value and sales. Personally, I preordered because I wanted a good swat game with team based mechanics, multiplayer and wave defense are good enough for me. I'm not saying you should settle for less, but this isn't really less content when you can get it online for 40 bucks. I think the flip side of this is better story games.

[just_looken]

I agree but these online only cash grab overpriced hunks of junk are making millions.

Online only games should be cheaper do to lack of content.

Sp only games require alot more dev time and always has more data size.

[Timesplitter14]

You got it backwards. It's the "value" of the game that should influence the price for you, not the dev time.

Online-only games usually last upwards of ten times longer than single player games. It's fairly common to see that people have spent 300+ hours in games like CS:GO, DayZ, Dota2, TF2, WoW, Rocket League, etc......

Not saying online games should be more expensive, but they definitely shouldn't be less expensive than single player games

[xPhearR3dx]

@Timesplitter14

While I partially agree with you, each one of those games you mentioned are less expensive than SP games with the exception of WoW due to the monthly sub.

IMO, MP only games are fine if there's enough content to justify it. If you're going to put out a MP only game and have like 4 game modes and 10 maps, you better not slap a $60 price tag on it.

SOCOM 2 would be a good example (despite it actually having a good single player portion) of how MP only games should be. That game shipped with 22 maps and 5 game modes. Plus, each map could be played at either night or during the day. Not to mention, nearly every single one of those 22 maps were pure gold and hardly throw away's.

There's also a reason the game was still being played 10 years after its release on the official servers with nearly 200 players. Not to mention it's still being played via Xlink. It was that damn good. That's the type of MP only games that should be sold for $60.

[user9950279]

that makes no sense. for me I get more value out of a great multiplayer game. A dev can pour all their resources into a single player game and it means almost nothing to me. You make the mistake of thinking value is some objective thing that can be quantified by dev time and resources spent. I can derive more value from a small well built multiplayer game than I can from some linear shooting experience with a story slapped onto it.

so while you may derive value from single player, that doesnt make it objectively more valuable. Multiplayer only games are built for people like me. not for people like you. I'm happy for them and am 100% sure they are here to stay regardless.

[_-EDMIX-_]

@Just_looken- "Online only games should be cheaper do to lack of content"??? LMFAO! No..just no.

Go look on Steam and take a look at some of your friends games (if you have steam) I can assure you the top hours they've put in their games are MP titles.

BOTH require lots of dev time bud, I don't think you get just how long it takes to balance out and fix MP titles, TF2 is still getting patched today..

Fight games, Racing games, FPS MP titles should not be LESS then single player games as they still have development times, they still have content that the user deems a value as to me, MP maps are a value for what I'm looking for.

Your comment is full of young and lacks lots and lots of sense. I mean...you do get that MOST titles released to day are not single player only right?

The value of a title is based on the team and the consumer.

If you don't like MP titles...thats nice.

Some do and its a value to them to play a quality MP title with quality maps, weapons, balance checks and updates etc They might be playing for hundreds if not thousands of hours, soooo many situations happen in MP that won't happen in SP modes due to SP modes controlled design.

I don't think you fully get the complexity that is in many, many MP only titles bud.

All games are not created equal, there is no set time, number of modes or "data size" LMFAO! that deems a title's worth.

Its worth is up to the user....clearly if MP titles where not worth that, millions would not be playing them as we speak.

My friends and I put well over 3000 hours in Smash Bros Melee...

We where not playing its adventure mode LOL!

[gangsta_red]

Exactly how do you even come to that conclusion that SP games require a lot more dev time?

Online games have to worry about servers, balancing, stress test PLUS all the other development production that comes with developing any huge AAA video game.

And what about SP games that are only 6 or 8 hours long? Should those also be cheaper? How long did a dev spend on those games?

Lack of content? Maps, weapons, skins, MP modes is lack of content compared to a single player game that gives you none of that.

C'mon now....

[Timesplitter14]

I've been gaming since snes AND I'm not stuck in the past

[suckingeggs]

So what your saying is because Im not a fan of multiplayer games only (never said I DONT like multi-player games Gta online is a blast but it also has a single player).... Im stuck in the past?

Damn timesplitter your so trendy dude..all give the hipster that is timesplitter a cheer.... S/

[VJGenova]

Multi-player only FPS have been around for a long time. Ever hear of Quake 3 Arena? Sure there was a "single player mode" but it was just an FFA against bots. No story. I played fhat game so much when it launched that it killed the multi-player FPS for me. Well, aside from the occasional Halo 1 session splitscreen 4 player that is.

I'm ready for them to come, and equally ready to ignore them like i did with evolve.

[_-EDMIX-_]

??? That has nothing to do with being "old skool" that has ever thing to do with "Multiplayer only" titles not being for you.

I've been gaming just as long and recall we've had many, many MP only games, in fact I would say due to my age I've know of this longer then a lot of gamers on here.

Quake (besides Quake 4) BF series (before Bad Company) Counter Strike, Team Fortress, ARMA, Planetside, any fighting game, any racing game lol

Sooooo you being "old skool" has nothing to do with that, merely means you have different taste, that has nothing to do with how long you've been gaming.

All I can say is, for as long as I've been gaming, multiplayer only titles have existed and I've been gaming just as long as you.

Are we ready for AAA MP only shooters? What? Is this author ready to actually look at gaming's history realize this isn't new and we've had that for eons? LOL! Young much?

[AngelicIceDiamond]

Yep I'm so ready for MP only games with little content that they provide at launch. Or confusing season pass plans that milk the very existing out of your dollar. TF, Destiny and Evolve.

[BrandanT]

Sure. As long as they don't over-saturate the entire shooter genre with them.

[FallenAngel1984]

I didn't think that Warhawk would start a trend of AAA multiplayer shooters without a single player campaign

[Immorals]

And you'd be correct in that thought.

Counterstrike? Team fortress 2? MAG? Day Z?

(I know some started as mods, but they have released as full games!)

[alfcrippinjr]

yeah counterstrike has a good follower pc

but is slowly dieing online ps3

mag was a good game until they decided
to cancel all the servers.

SOCOM 4 wtf turn of the server that use to be full online all the time.
reason why it got removed sony did not want to pay for the licence no more :(

they should had made all of them offline play.

[_-EDMIX-_]

And you'd be correct in that thought.

Counterstrike? Team fortress 2?"

How would he be correct if Warhawk released AFTER Those titles, they didn't start a "trend" as Counter Strike released in 1999, Team Fortress 1 1999 and TF2 released around the same time as Warhawk and it was clearly due to what TF1 was soooooo no.

Thats been around for a very, very long time... ie Quake arena, Unreal Tournament, Planetside etc.

[Timesplitter14]

I don't think Warhawk started that trend, period. There's a world outside of Playstation, you know

[Lighter9]

Stop lying! A world outside of PlayStation doesn't exist. Period.

[_-EDMIX-_]

Agreed. Warhawk factually didn't start that, we've had MP only shooters for as long as we've had FPS games period.

lol ,states facts....disagrees.

[DanteVFenris666]

@lighter9 what if I told you lies didn't exist. Than what would your statement equate to. That is if I'm not lying

[coolbeans]

Wasn't even close to starting this trend and technically not AAA to begin with. The only $60 price point it had was with a bundled Bluetooth headset. The downloadable version was $30 (non-sale) at launch.

[ziggurcat]

I don't exactly enjoy MP, but there should still be a story mode (and by that I mean a MP story mode).

[the_hitman3000]

I enjoy both a good campaign and a good multiplayer. However maybe we shouldn't force them to shoehorn a story. Everyone agrees that tomb raider shouldn't do online again and it's okay. Dice don't put a story in Battlefront and people lose there minds. Why should we care about a campaign in this game when people didn't care much on bf3 or bf4?

[ziggurcat]

"Everyone agrees that tomb raider shouldn't do online again and it's okay. Dice don't put a story in Battlefront and people lose there minds."

because TR is a single player game... and it's utterly ridiculous to not have a story mode for a *star wars* game.

"Why should we care about a campaign in this game when people didn't care much on bf3 or bf4?"

because the game isn't worth playing if it's just TDM over, and over, and over, and over.... and over....

[the_hitman3000]

Okay, just cause it's star wars don't mean it has to focus on a story. I heard the last two never really had one anyway, plus viscerals game will be the story one. And okay doing the same thing over and over again must not be that boring for most. Why is Counter Strike still popular? Why is Cod multiplayer always so heavily played. Having a campaign does nothing to the longevity of a online game.

[Volkama]

Apparently every Star Wars game must cater to every Star Wars fan.

I don't personally care about the lack of campaign, but I am outraged that I cannot play as and/or romance an Ewok.

[Heyxyz]

Because Titanfall's MP story mode worked so well...

[Automatic79]

This is the reason I feel TombRaider comes at a perfect time. If you look at the big picture of all the titles which happens to be predominantly shooters coming out around the holidays TombRaider gives us that Action Adventure single player fix. I will get my shooter fix from HALO and a few weeks later Action Adventure fix with TombRaider. Shooters are fantastic but once in a while you have to switch it up.

[polow got sol]

We weren't ready when Titanfall released but we sure as hell will be when star wars releases....

[alfcrippinjr]

this game should be the max $40 nothing more.

no campaign means no buy for us.

when they first release the information on the game
saying there be a story in it and your go all over the world.
but no they decided to go the cheap way out and still
charge us full money for a game which does not have
no campaign nothing.

your better of buying just cause or tom clancy wilderness
atless they all have a story mode.
and you can play offline.

[Skankinruby]

This would be a nightmare. I didn't support Destiny, and won't support Battlefront because theyre incomplete games. Tragic part is they both have the potential to be amazing. If this becomes a more popular thing as gaming progresses I think I'm done with all of it.

[WeAreLegion]

Why can't developers just make what they want to make? I loved MAG.

[Hercules189]

If there's already an established story for the franchise, it truly is a huge disappointment wh n they throw it away. Rainbow 6 and GR both had really enjoyable campaigns and multi. Now games like titanfall,cs,warhawk and mag don't have a story to begin with so its not a heartbreak to wonder what could've been.

[wraith4912]

Ready for less content? Ready for more laziness? Oh I'm effin' stoked! /s

[DiaperFace]

I never once played through CoD campaign though others do. Just sell them separately. I'd not want to pay for what I won't use anyway. Same for Street Fighter, just sell me the multiplayer.

[OverdosedWitDopeness]

If it's no story and still $60 u should get at least 1 or 2 dlcs for free that would be a reasonable trade off.Considering Battlefront though there is so much content in the star wars universe its kinda retarded that they didn't make a campaign.

[TheFutureIsBlue]

People seem to forget that MP only games use to be the thing. Unreal Tournament, Counter-Strike, Tribes...

[r3f1cul]

ugh mp only games is a trend that i was hoping would just stay dead... but thats just a personal gripe, i understand that others clearly love this stuff and more power to every gamer enjoying whatever it may be... but this like the days of unreal tournie are just going to be skipped by me for the strong single player experiences.. besides i got fallout 4 coming, i couldnt care less about anything else this holiday season so im winning on that front and im sure someone is just as pumped about battlefront so to each their own :D game on

[DualWielding]

I don't mind multiplayer only games as long as that also means shitty multiplayer is kept away from my single player games

[DanteVFenris666]

Don't like multiplayer games don't buy them. Like Jesus christ it seems people are having a hard time with this revelation. Like everyone here overcomplicates matters and decides the morals of game development. I feel like the little kid in the corner crying saying "I just Play games for fun 😭" as everyone is murdering eachother in this comment section.

Though I come here cause conflict gets me off sometimes.

[ninsigma]

As long as not every fps game is multiplayer only. Still need those sp games!

[Manubiggs]

The question is, is mp enough to keep me satisfied? Not convinced? I enjoyed the star wars beta but I'm not sure I will play it for long.

[il-JumperMT]

Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield 2 say Hi.

There is a reason Battlefield sucked when they added Single Player.

Same can be said for SP players game who slap on shitty MP Mode. Its a waste of resources.

[Sly-Lupin]

I think the question is, rather, when was the last time there was a AAA shooter with a singleplayer component worth playing?

The Call of Duties of the world are clearly catered to the multiplayer gamer. IF they were to stop paying lip-service to us SP folks, I don't really think they'd be missed.

[Blacklash93]

I think this happening was foreseeable, given the criticism that certain MP-focused shooter franchises have gotten for having tacked-on and generic SP campaigns.

If some shooters want to focus solely on MP, that's totally fine. Theoretically, the volume of content and features for the sole MP offerings should increase significantly; since the developers are spending all the time and energy they may have on an SP campaign, on the MP instead.