Support NeoGAF

[Men_in_Boxes]

We've known about this forever, but yesterday gave us another reminder about the power of multiplayer...



I thought it might be interesting to understand why . Here are the 4 main reasons (as I see it) why multiplayer has surged past single player as the torchbearer for the medium.

1. Humans are the most social animal on planet earth. It's in our DNA. You'll often hear NeoGAFers say something like..."When I get home from work, the last thing I want to do is have teenagers vomit in my ear. I just want to be left alone." Yet, they'll type these very words on NeoGAF, which...I'm sure you see the irony. Everyone here has neighbors, friends, family we interact with every day because living in the woods as a hermit isn't all that rewarding. Humans crave connection.

2. Single Player has lost its stranglehold on Bartles 8 Player Types...

There's some valid criticism of Bartles 8 Player Psychologies but the overall concept is undeniable. People play games for different reasons. KILLERS (Doom to Fortnite), EXPLORERS (Skyrim to Fortnite), ACHIEVERS (Trophies+Achievements to Battle Passes), SOCIALIZERS (nothing to Fortnite) etc...Thanks to advancements in technology, multiplayer has made massive inroads to appeal to different player types. Multiplayer used to be the barbarian horde trapped in the KILLERS category. Single player could freely explore the other 7 types without any pressure. Those days are long gone. The barbarians are out.


3. Single Player is losing its grip on the permanence + progression advantage. I often hear single player gamers say "Multiplayer games are too repetitive. You just do the same thing over and over. I like story in my games." This critique is becoming less and less valid as multiplayer moves from short round based games to worlds with permanence. If you're struggling to understand what this means, watch this...



The only thing more satisfying than accomplishing easy short term goals (Overwatch - 10 min rounds) with friends is accomplishing difficult, long term goals with friends (DayZ - 1 month servers).

4. Tattoos wouldn't exist if others couldn't see them. Horse armor flopped because social interaction is vital to keeping up appearances. Not isolation. Today MTX make up a massive bulk of gaming revenue and the industry has really only spent 15 or so years figuring this stuff out. The revenue breakdown from one of the most successful single player focused game companies (PlayStation) in history...

Look at the yellow. If almost no effort produces this kind of revenue split, what will effort produce?


Multiplayer oriented GAFers and single player oriented GAFers, did I miss anything?

 

[Majima Everywhere System]

It happened to me in the last two years, but I barely can watch TV and movies anymore.

So I now am mostly interested in multiplayer. When I play single player, I would probably be happier skipping cutscenes at this point. But ever fiber of my gaming being prevents me from doing that. Why else play these games that are relatively samey with repeating scenarios.

 

[Graciaus]

I don't play multi-player games anymore. Don't feel like I've missed anything of value.

 

[Magic Carpet]

I've heard for decades the most requested feature for Elder Scrolls was add a co-op mode.

 

[8BiTw0LF]

Singleplayer and multiplayer are evenly rewarding for me. Sometimes I need to explore on my own, but I'm always ready to work with others to obtain a common goal.

 

[theStartupSound]

It’s not that I hate online multiplayer, it just isn’t much for me. Yes, I want social interaction, but not with some internet randos. For human interaction in games I prefer games like Overcooked or Ultimate Chicken Horse, with everyone I play with is sitting right next to me.

I feel like to have fun in an competitive online multiplayer game I need much more of my valuable time to be good enough to compete but also for long waiting until the lobby is full or finding some people it is really fun to play with.

But this clearly depends on the people around you. If there are many online gamers, you clearly would feel different than me.

 

[Topher]

 

[Con-Z-epT]

I like single-player games much more. I'm surely not alone and there will always be a place for these kind of experiences. Curious to see where we will be in 10-20 years.

 

[RaZoR No1]

Multiplayer is a cheap way to avoid AI in games, because now we are the NPCs in the games

 

[Kuranghi]

For the most part I hate other people mucking up my games fun. I'm not trying to be myself even in singleplayer games, when I read a book I'm into its the same I'm not putting myself in their persepective. I'm myself all the rest of the time, why would I want to do be that in games too.

What you don't see is me slamdunking this boy 1 second after the gif ends. There was a trampette nearby.

 

[Raven77]

1. Money
2. Money
3. Money
4. Money

 

[AV]

This really is "water is wet" territory at this point.

 

[ProgenitorCastle]

 

[winjer]

The main reason that MP took over is that it's much better suited for GaaS, with tons of micro-transactions and loot boxes.
And companies only care about raking in billions, so everyone is investing in it.
That leaves less investment for SP games, and less choice for gamers.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Multiplayer is a cheap way to avoid AI in games, because now we are the NPCs in the games

Cheaper and more effective.

The natural PvP centered dialogue found in games like Among Us or DayZ runs circles around the best single player AI in existence.

Plus, PvP players generally act in their own interest (more believable) unlike the AI in single player games.

 

[chixdiggit]

I play both but definitely prefer multiplayer for the social and competitive aspect. Going into a squad with a friend and matching against other real humans is more rewarding than finishing a campaign for me.

Multiplayer is a cheap way to avoid AI in games, because now we are the NPCs in the games

Except a large amount of multiplayer games have AI. This isn't 2005 where all multiplayer games are just 8v8 team deathmatch.

 

[Ghost of Caelid]

I feel like the demographic of this forum is older so its hard to comprehend for some how multiplayer games build a sense of community. I love my SP games but some of the best memories are playing Zombies with my friends, 2K at school in tournaments or finishing It takes two with my gf. I mean when you look back at the vision of gaming in the future from movies like tron its all co-op. It was seen at the final frontier for gaming in many cases. I think single player will always be the best medium to tell a story in an artistic sense, but a multiplayer dominated industry was always the final goal. It's just who we are as humans. Which is why I don't bash it. I remember the single player experiences a ton, but most of my gaming is multiplayer in between SP experiences.

 

[Beer Baelly]

Let me explain myself

 

[vaibhavpisal]

I used to be that "I play SP games only" guy.

Mostly for story etc. However over time I got burnt out by that. Finishing SP campaigns one after another doesn't appeal to me anymore.

Now I mix and match and give ample time to coop games. Story focused games i play only if game offers meaningful mechanics as well. Don't care about stories as such cause they tend to be ok at best.

 

[a multicultural team of v]

I feel like the demographic of this forum is older so its hard to comprehend for some how multiplayer games build a sense of community. I love my SP games but some of the best memories are playing Zombies with my friends, 2K at school in tournaments or finishing It takes two with my gf. I mean when you look back at the vision of gaming in the future from movies like tron its all co-op. It was seen at the final frontier for gaming in many cases. I think single player will always be the best medium to tell a story in an artistic sense, but a multiplayer dominated industry was always the final goal. It's just who we are as humans. Which is why I don't bash it. I remember the single player experiences a ton, but most of my gaming is multiplayer in between SP experiences.

I think multiplayer for these discussions needs to be split into two categories, multiplayer with people you know and multiplayer with randoms (maybe even further into competitive and coop). I played Warzone daily for over a year with the same group of friends, and only them. If I had to play with randoms I would have played for less than a day.

 

[Frank Horrigan]

1. Addiction
2. Marketing push towards MP over SP (Microsoft and EA's famous "single player games are dead" speech, even though they can choose to make single player games)
3. Greed
4. Addiction

 

[kikkis]

I play both but definitely prefer multiplayer for the social and competitive aspect. Going into a squad with a friend and matching against other real humans is more rewarding than finishing a campaign for me.


Except a large amount of multiplayer games have AI. This isn't 2005 where all multiplayer games are just 8v8 team deathmatch.

I love social banter in cod cyber attack. I don't talk myself since i suck at it but it's cool regardless.

 

[Putonahappyface]

I'm predominantly a single player gamer. I've tried to play multiplayer games recently, but they're either broken or aimed at zoomers.

 

[A.Romero]

MP has always been a focus on gaming but technology wasn't there at the beginning. The first time I played online it was back in 1997 or 1998 when I dialed from my computer to a friend's to play Doom over the phone.

At soon as it was possible to offer a streamlined experience it took off. This is one of the most notable things Microsoft and Xbox brought to the industry. While it existed in PC before it sometimes was a pain in the ass to get it working.

Personally I love SP story focused games and I don't see that going away. There are many games where I haven't even tried the MP (MGS3, MGS4, Uncharted come to mind). However, I do play MP but usually not with randos, MP online gaming is the way I keep in touch with my brother who lives 1000 KM away as well as friends that now live in other cities.

I don't care about microtransactions for the most part, there can be there and I don't mind people spending money on them. Players should be able to choice.

So far I haven't come across a MP game that is Pay 2 Win in a noticeable way (although I must accept that I don't play competitively).

Basically gaming is about MP for the most part and it has always been.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Multiplayer is a cheap way to avoid AI in games, because now we are the NPCs in the games

in real life too

 

[Umbasaborne]

The primary reason is that its easier to attach a long term monetization plan to a multiplayer game than a single player one

 

[Guilty_AI]

I like playing multiplayer, i don't like multiplayer games. What you're missing here is the FOMO and monetization abomination the MP market has become.

Playing COOP Elden Ring or Divinity OS2 with friends == FUN
Log into Fortnite, be bombarded with skins, v-buck prices, events, battle passes == UNFUN

Going into something like Death Stranding and seeing all the players constructions around meant to help you == FUN
Grinding your ass off on Destiny 2 or some other similar game, miss out on content and be constantly pressured to log in as a night-time job == UNFUN

Ironically the best and most creative multiplayer games are the ones derived from single player. Even some of the most popular MP games like GTA and Minecraft only grew in popularity thanks to its single player modes, multiplayer need single player games if you want the market to stay fresh and creative.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I like playing multiplayer, i don't like multiplayer games. What you're missing here is the FOMO and monetization abomination the MP market has become.

I don't think FOMO is as powerful as you make it out to be. Player engagement for successful multiplayer games is pretty high in between FOMO events. In fact, it appears that Fortnite may be moving away from FOMO events as they don't seem trigger long lasting engagement, which is what they want.

Playing COOP Elden Ring or Divinity OS2 with friends == FUN
Log into Fortnite, be bombarded with skins, v-buck prices, events, battle passes == UNFUN

Going into something like Death Stranding and seeing all the players constructions around meant to help you == FUN
Grinding your ass off on Destiny 2 or some other similar game, miss out on content and be constantly pressured to log in as a night-time job == UNFUN

Are you talking about the market or just your personal preference? Because judging by the market, your FUN - UNFUN labels need to be switched.

 

[mutt765]

I get that teaming up with friends and competing against other people is fun, but otherwise these games are just Skinner boxes. If my friends aren't online I much prefer playing something with a story, otherwise I just think about how there's literally no ending to this game, just the next season, and think "what's the point?"

EXPLORERS (Skyrim to Fortnite)

Side note: I get how games like DayZ appeal to "EXPLORERS" but what exploration is there in Fortnite? unless you're talking about that PvE zombies mode nobody plays?

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

They are taking advantage of the way our brain is wired (this is why 'trash TV'/Drama-controversy) is far more popular than stuff that requires a lot of mental or cognitive effort to understand/engage.

Multiplayer is not better per se; it's just like trash food.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I don't think FOMO is as powerful as you make it out to be. Player engagement for successful multiplayer games is pretty high in between FOMO events. In fact, it appears that Fortnite may be moving away from FOMO events as they don't seem trigger long lasting engagement, which is what they want.

FOMO isn't just events. Its also battle passes, limited time/quantity sales of skins and such, or even simple peer pressure.

And yes, its very powerful. You couldn't have said it better yourself:

Humans are [one of] the most social animal on planet earth. It's in our DNA.

Thats why its powerful. When everyones doing something, getting something, participating in something, even the thought someone might have something we don't, we get prompted to do the same.

Its a tactic that exploits our very nature to make money, thats why it works so well.

Are you talking about the market or just your personal preference? Because judging by the market, your FUN - UNFUN labels need to be switched.

Of course its my preferences. To lead the market whats needed isn't FUN, its to create addiction and habit.

 

[Drizzlehell]

Nice propaganda piece, OP.

Whether you came to this conclusion on your own or you've just been brainwashed, big buck corpos would love nothing more than to put single player games to death and churn out nothing but relatively low-cost multiplayer games with lengthy life cycles and sustainable business models such as GaaS.

But literally no one will ever convince me that everyone is somehow losing interested in good, solid, solo gaming experiences because it's been proven time and time again that there is an audience for everything, including the franchises or genres that triple-A publishers would rather have you believe are dead. The only reason why someone would start losing interest in a certain type of games it's because the publishers stopped putting them out, or at least they stopped putting an effort to actually make games that resonate with the audience. It's basically a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Side note: I get how games like DayZ appeal to "EXPLORERS" but what exploration is there in Fortnite? unless you're talking about that PvE zombies mode nobody plays?

Seeing what surprises are around the bend. Is it worth expending resources to find out?

I listed Fortnite because it's an example of a successful game that's making inroads in an area traditionally dominated by single player.

What's in that supply drop?
What does this new PoI look like?
What does this gunfire look like up ahead?
What will that high ground show us?

The successful multiplayer from 2010, was more arena focused. Smaller maps that all look the same every time you play.

FOMO isn't just events. Its also battle passes, limited time/quantity sales of skins and such, or even simple peer pressure.

And yes, its very powerful. You couldn't have said it better yourself:


Thats why its powerful. When everyones doing something, getting something, participating in something, even the thought someone might have something we don't, we get prompted to do the same.

Its a tactic that exploits our very nature to make money, thats why it works so well.

So FOMO is in single player as well. It's why companies heavily advertise their product a few weeks prior to release, get conversation going a week into release, and then ditch it forever after that. Psychology, addiction, FOMO, skinner boxes all apply to single player as well.

It's all the other reasons why multiplayer has such a market advantage.

Of course its my preferences. To lead the market whats needed isn't FUN, its to create addiction and habit.

Good luck making a game that isn't fun. It would be entertaining watching someone pitch that game to publishers from around the planet.

 

[IDKFA]

I see it. My 15 year old son and all his mates only play multiplayer games. They don't really enjoy single player games because it's not a social experience. I don't think my son has touched a single player game since Spider-Man in 2018.

In fact, I really don't know anybody in real life that plays single player games any more.

 

[GHG]

Other than in racing games/sims my interest in multiplayer these days is almost zero. The only recent exception being Halo Infinite because that's a throwback to classic arena shooters which are sorely missed in a time of style over substance multiplayer games targeted towards a generation of gamers and kids afflicted with ADHD. And the reason why it's important racing games have a solid online component these days is only because AI in the genre has largely failed to evolve.

Co-op can be fun as long as the underlying game is actually good but other than that it's nothing but trash. Whenever I hear or read "it's better with friends" it means the game itself is subpar and the developers are getting away with it because of the social aspect. If you have a good set of friends then it's pretty easy to make light of even the shittest situations - that's why you're friends.

But in general no I don't want to have to deal with or hear random people talking nonsense in my ear during my downtime, which is why racing games are cool with me in this aspect. Other than when there's an incident, everyone just shuts the fuck up and is focused on their race.

 

[bender]

 

[Guilty_AI]

So FOMO is in single player as well. It's why companies heavily advertise their product a few weeks prior to release, get conversation going a week into release, and then ditch it forever after that. Psychology, addiction, FOMO, skinner boxes all apply to single player as well.

yes

It's all the other reasons why multiplayer has such a market advantage.

Its not a coincidence that the single player games that do everything you said before happen to be the ones selling 20M copies and getting millions of people to pay up $70 or more on release, despite often being just 'ok' titles with not much to them.

FOMO works, and its especially abused by lots of AAA and multiplayer developers/publishers.

Good luck making a game that isn't fun. It would be entertaining watching someone pitch that game to publishers from around the planet.

Why bother pitching something that could be unfun when all you have to do is copy formulas known to work. From then, all you have to do is use that as a gateway to create habit and addiction. After hooking people with a small bit of 'fun', slowly introduce stuff that reaches for their wallet and create artificial reasons to play the game regularly, like daily log in rewards or some shit.
After that, you don't need 'fun' anymore and can freely ditch it, the person is already too 'commited' to game to abandon it easily. Worked very well for Fortnite.

 

[spawn]

I enjoy single player because I like story in my games and I like learning about the lore of the characters so most of my games are single player. Once I feel like I've done everything in the game I uninstall and move to the next single player game. Multiplayer is hit or miss for me. I will either like the game or absolutely hate it. I'm not the type of gamer who likes pay to win mechanics in multiplayer and I never pay money for skins. I think new skins or new guns should be reward-based only which I understand doesn't make money for the publisher, but I'm ancient

 

[ZoukGalaxy]

Only reason: money.

I don't give a single shit about MP, they could be eradicated from this world, It would give a single shit. MP CAN DIE.

But MP is easier for devs and published: less effort, infinite loop gameplay with MTX and lootboxes gambling everywhere = more money. Simple equation.

And MP has not taken over SP at all, that's only your 100% biased point of view. It's a "you problem".

YOU =/= THE WORLD

Also, people and more and more unable to have 5min+ attention on something, that's depressing.

/thread

 

[A Most Virtuous Cat]

Two major reasons:
1. Stories have become utterly bad due to "The Message".
2. MTX in single player.

 

[IFireflyl]

I voted that the OP has a blindspot, so I'm here to make my argument. This is quite lengthy, so I'll put it in spoilers so people don't have to spend time scrolling past it.

Spoiler: Why The OP Is Wrong - A Novel

 

[phaedrus]

 

[Shubh_C63]

Single player needs time and commitment. I have seen friends not picking up GOW after having a break.
Multiplayer is just good 30 min burst of fun (and death). This is why I like Destiny.

 

[Tygeezy]

The data speaks for itself. Check out steam charts or the xbox charts. More gaming hours consistently is spent on multiplayer games. That doesn't mean there is no value in single player games, but people overall clearly prefer multiplayer.

 

[synchronicity]

but people...

 

[MiguelItUp]

There needs to be a world where both exist, and honestly if we lived in a world where they didn't I'd probably find another hobby. Especially since we already have so many issues with so many multiplayer games being so similar. But in the end, a lot of people suck, and majority of the experiences had online (especially with other players) are usually negative. It's like the days of fun, cooperative, and constructive communication has been overshadowed by yelling, whining, and toxicity of various forms.

So, in my experiences, unless playing with friends, I mute the mics and just use pings and in-game communication systems. So, the end result feels like I'm playing with bots instead of real people.

I'd argue that a lot of multiplayer games are "so populated" because... well... the big ones are free to play. So, yeah, of course free is going to get higher numbers than anything that's paid for, like most single player experiences are. Especially the good to great ones.

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

It's exactly the same reason "reality shows" completely took over so much of cable and network television: it's cheaper, and therefore easier to turn a profit. Unfortunately that's the sole driver that gives us trash like Fortnite... plus you can steal money from kids who feel they have to keep up with their friends and have the latest dumb Marvel costume, which is basically 99% of the profit of that game, and the creators know and embrace that model of exploiting kids as their core business.

Small nitpick on the more specific points above: "explorers" (me) would never play something like Fortnite or any of these online season games. I play Elden Ring for that (FYI I keep it offline-only mode the whole time), or Zelda, or plenty of other well-crafted experiences.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

FOMO works, and its especially abused by lots of AAA and multiplayer developers/publishers.

I pushed back on the "multiplayer is only popular because of FOMO" accusation because it literally applies to everything in life. It doesn't accurately address why multiplayer has shot past single player.

Why bother pitching something that could be unfun when all you have to do is copy formulas known to work.

Because formula games get gobbled up by innovative, creative game design.

Arena shooters were once a successful formula. We've seen one million arena shooters flop over the last 5 years, despite adding all the "addictive, skinnier box" type mechanics because they are relatively unfun now. They were very fun back in 1997.

From then, all you have to do is use that as a gateway to create habit and addiction. After hooking people with a small bit of 'fun', slowly introduce stuff that reaches for their wallet and create artificial reasons to play the game regularly, like daily log in rewards or some shit.

Again, this stuff doesn't work on the majority of titles. You're giving waaaaay too much credit to things that only influence player engagement minimally.

After that, you don't need 'fun' anymore and can freely ditch it, the person is already too 'commited' to game to abandon it easily. Worked very well for Fortnite.

Without fun, game dies.

 

[Danjin44]

I personally I have waaaaaay more fun playing single player games than MP, I have zero desire dealing with other people in my gaming time.

 

[yurinka]

We've known about this forever, but yesterday gave us another reminder about the power of multiplayer...



I thought it might be interesting to understand why . Here are the 4 main reasons (as I see it) why multiplayer has surged past single player as the torchbearer for the medium.

1. Humans are the most social animal on planet earth. It's in our DNA. You'll often hear NeoGAFers say something like..."When I get home from work, the last thing I want to do is have teenagers vomit in my ear. I just want to be left alone." Yet, they'll type these very words on NeoGAF, which...I'm sure you see the irony. Everyone here has neighbors, friends, family we interact with every day because living in the woods as a hermit isn't all that rewarding. Humans crave connection.

2. Single Player has lost its stranglehold on Bartles 8 Player Types...

There's some valid criticism of Bartles 8 Player Psychologies but the overall concept is undeniable. People play games for different reasons. KILLERS (Doom to Fortnite), EXPLORERS (Skyrim to Fortnite), ACHIEVERS (Trophies+Achievements to Battle Passes), SOCIALIZERS (nothing to Fortnite) etc...Thanks to advancements in technology, multiplayer has made massive inroads to appeal to different player types. Multiplayer used to be the barbarian horde trapped in the KILLERS category. Single player could freely explore the other 7 types without any pressure. Those days are long gone. The barbarians are out.


3. Single Player is losing its grip on the permanence + progression advantage. I often hear single player gamers say "Multiplayer games are too repetitive. You just do the same thing over and over. I like story in my games." This critique is becoming less and less valid as multiplayer moves from short round based games to worlds with permanence. If you're struggling to understand what this means, watch this...



The only thing more satisfying than accomplishing easy short term goals (Overwatch - 10 min rounds) with friends is accomplishing difficult, long term goals with friends (DayZ - 1 month servers).

4. Tattoos wouldn't exist if others couldn't see them. Horse armor flopped because social interaction is vital to keeping up appearances. Not isolation. Today MTX make up a massive bulk of gaming revenue and the industry has really only spent 15 or so years figuring this stuff out. The revenue breakdown from one of the most successful single player focused game companies (PlayStation) in history...

Look at the yellow. If almost no effort produces this kind of revenue split, what will effort produce?


Multiplayer oriented GAFers and single player oriented GAFers, did I miss anything?

I worked during over a decade in many games of this type of games on top 5 publishers in many markets, even being pioneer on some of these markets. Also, some friends/former coworkers moved to other top companies making games of these types. And I also love to read market analysis stuff.

Here's what I learnt after all these years:

• Multiplayer has 'taking over' (SP is far from beind done, but it's true that MP grew a lot in the last decade or two) because it generates more money for big publishers. Companies typically prioritize what makes more money.
• The reason of MP games making more revenue is that players spend more money on MP focused games via DLC/IAP/passes.
• And do it because the amount of time that a player spent in a game is directly proportional to the chances that he will buy DLC/IAP/passes there, and players spend way more time on MP games than in SP games.
• They spend more time in multiplayer because it's more fun to compete against a human than versus a CPU, mostly because each match feels more different and less repetitive, and the difficulty/chances to reward is random, so the player will be more likely to try it again.
• Most multiplayer games have no social interaction between players or coop options, most of the successful MP games are competitive. Many players prefer to don't rely on others.
• Coop and social features are an additional layer to increase retention, but the main one is the competitive side. (insert here an antropology keynote explaining why humans like to compete and the origins behind it competing for food, couple, territory etc since back in the caverns age etc)
• To keep releasing new content periodically and updating or fixing the game (GaaS) also keeps the player hooked to see what they do release or fix next and keeps the game fresh with new stuff to be discovered in the future.
• Remember: the more hooked/engaged/amount of hours played make the player more likely to spend on DLC/IAP/passes.
• The amount of revenue generated by these DLC/IAP/passes is way higher than the one from buying games and keeps growing, and the average amount of money spent per user (ARPU) is way higher in these GaaS MP focused games and to make DLC/IAP/passes is cheaper than to make a different game so this is why companies got more interested on GaaS MP focused games.

What Zuckerberg (and any other social media or messaging company) wants is to control, track, filter, censor, redirect and monitorize your both your personal and professional communications and eventually be able to block them if he wants. As part of tracking what you do and think in any possible way they can (also via pc/mobile hardware or OS companies).

All this data -aggregated, not personal one- is useful for social engineering, governments, ad companies, military, big corporations, etc.