• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Marathon had a budget of >$200M

I'm gonna dip in here and say one thing. I was going to post this in the CCU thread but thought it might be more relevant here. I've been saying this.

The USA studios are no longer going to be able to keep up in the gaming space and may be shut down eventually. The cost of living and creating games in the US is astronomically higher than in many other countries, especially asian countries. We are also losing any tech advantage as diminishing returns in gaming and unification of development arise. There is no longer an advantage to spending the extra money to make your game in the US.

So while I may enjoy seeing a GAAS die, I am a bit worried about any US studio. The cost of living, insurance, office space, phone systems, and the AI influx that is also costing these businesses a lot to implement and maybe not having the huge returns expected yet, we will see people try to save money on development costs and what is the easiest way to do that? AI is also helping improve features and bring them to parity with legacy features big AAA US studios offer. Look at the graphics in arc raiders vs marathon and look at the difference in costs. It's getting to the point where ideas and proper game theory is more important than your tech stack.

Move development to Asia(or anywhere but the most expensive place), that's what they are gonna do.
 
Last edited:
Cakeboxer said:
I get your point, but you're getting a little too emotional here. We're talking about Sony, a company that sells entertainment products - not the Roxxon Corporation secretly poisoning the planet. You can criticize companies without going straight into the "I hope they go bankrupt" mode while pretending all consequences magically don't affect real people.
Click to expand...
Dude just stop. Words are just words, change can sometimes only happen when heads roll.. You're blindly defending an entity that you'll never meet or know, sure if someone loses their job well that sucks but that's life.. Maybe that person wasn't worth the money they're being paid, ever think of that? That's a huge issue half the time. They get severences, they get unemployment, and eventually a new job

I'm so tired of this I don't know what to call it but this fragile way of thought where people act like being fired isn't a natural part of business especially in the corporate world, it' happens and will forever happen.
 
Waterfall development has lost nothing in multiplayer games (unlike story driven games), prototype early, release early and then fail fast to work on the next thing until you hit gold.
$10-15 Mil and 18 Months of dev time, that's all you need to bring out a working game. Multiplayer is pure functional gameplay and the core gameplay loop is all players need.
No crazy graphics, no custom design language, no deep character profiles, no GCI, just release the damn game, if players love it, then you can comeback with Part 2 and flesh it all out nicely.

6 years and $200 Mil... an adult daycare called Bungie, what a joke.
 
Last edited:
For everyone's sake... This is the next target to destroy.
nRUIFl23fRiq8fz2.jpg


At least not destroy Guerrilla Games, but leave it reeling and reeling.

If Guerrilla Games continues to damage the industry... then we must destroy it.
 
gundalf said:
6 years and $200 Mil... an adult daycare called Bungie, what a joke.
Click to expand...
Same company that does free cooking and knitting classes for employees.

To be honest, it sounds like total fun and easy working there. Sounds like you can goof around all day and waste 6 years and $200M+ on a shallow game which had already gotten beaten up in last year's beta, and then got greenlit 6 months delay. And still a game with little content.

Compared to the old Halo days they churned out lots of them in a decade. Full fledged games with a big backdrop story, SP campaign and a ton of MP. Somehow Bungie figured it out during the Xbox OG and 360 days.
 
Last edited:
Sony suddenly can't make shooters after the ps3 who had mag, socom, mgo3, uc2, resistance, Killzone. Why can't they make shooters today? My theory is they won't revive any of those franchises. Sony wants to take on apex, fortnight, when they had loyal fans for 20+ years, ps3 was winning.
 
Zacfoldor said:
He admits AI isn't going anywhere. He's way off when he says AI might be no more than an auto-complete tool.

.....okay, so how to say this exactly.....

You are using phrases as pejoratives like "auto-complete tool" as if being defined as that limits one in any way.

What I'm saying is look at what you are. Are you a shitting machine? Of course you are, but you are also more. So is AI.

Imagine a human who wasn't human but kinda close, like Martian, but they have all the human faults. How poorly would they describe us? Imagine if we turned our cynical critical comments about AI towards humans. I've done it myself, actually. I'd post it here but it's pretty misanthropic. It would not set well with most human mental health.
Click to expand...

mckmas8808 said:
Oh My God................this is such an amazing point that I'm stealing it lol. It's perfect and straight to the point. The Anti-AI people are getting to be as annoying as the Anti-DEI people. And it's all due to the same thing. There's no nuance that they can accept in the converstation.
Click to expand...


👆 The irony with this interaction is that people in the industry crying about AI are... drumroll please 🥁 🥁 🥁:

DEI-Hires... Which are literally and figurative shittings machines 🤷🏻‍♂️... 👉🧠
 
Zacfoldor said:
I'm gonna dip in here and say one thing. I was going to post this in the CCU thread but thought it might be more relevant here. I've been saying this.

The USA studios are no longer going to be able to keep up in the gaming space and may be shut down eventually. The cost of living and creating games in the US is astronomically higher than in many other countries, especially asian countries. We are also losing any tech advantage as diminishing returns in gaming and unification of development arise. There is no longer an advantage to spending the extra money to make your game in the US.

So while I may enjoy seeing a GAAS die, I am a bit worried about any US studio. The cost of living, insurance, office space, phone systems, and the AI influx that is also costing these businesses a lot to implement and maybe not having the huge returns expected yet, we will see people try to save money on development costs and what is the easiest way to do that? AI is also helping improve features and bring them to parity with legacy features big AAA US studios offer. Look at the graphics in arc raiders vs marathon and look at the difference in costs. It's getting to the point where ideas and proper game theory is more important than your tech stack.

Move development to Asia(or anywhere but the most expensive place), that's what they are gonna do.
Click to expand...
Don't see the issue. Western (AAA) development has completely jumped the shark. Burn it down. Maybe it recovers, maybe it doesn't.
 
Whether you like the game or not, the budget relative to content makes no sense. How do you spend that much money on three maps exactly. There was a time when you would get an 8 hour campaign, a comprehensive multiplayer component with at least 10 maps with a dozen modes at a fraction of the time and cost. Are these companies a front or something? What are they actually doing in that time
 
Man these GaaS style games really are a great way to just throw money into the trash, it seems. I know that if you get the lucky ticket you'll be bringing in the serious money for an extended period and that is tempting, but 4-6+ years of dev time and hundreds of millions of dollars just for it to go *poof* is such a major risk, I really struggle to understand.

Bungie could have make a new sci-fi (or whatever) trilogy of single player games, action adventure/RPG, with all the polish in the world and created a new top franchise with massive and dedicated fanbase, with various spinoffs and supplemental media, etc. Of course with these titles you could have still had the multiplayer modes of old, deathmatch, etc, with opportunities for microtransactions and skins, consumables and/or cosmetics.

They have the talent to do the above, I would have thought, with little risk involved. But these GaaS types just always seem to be a roll of a dice, regardless of who you are, regardless of what you have done in the industry.

Marathon is obviously limping on but let us face it, it's looking grim. All of this is puzzling, really. It is like common sense has been lost, completely. You would have expected better from Bungie and Sony at this point, really.

That said, I suppose most of these games coming out right now were greenlit when GaaS was still in its heyday, and the powers that be cannot really be blamed for not knowing GaaS were going to be a more risky bet circa 25/26? I am not an expert on such things, really. I just stick to my boomer games, single player stuff. Marathon isn't my sort of thing, and outside of a bit of Fallout 76 a few years back, I see "GaaS" and I am out, more than likely, anyway. But I hope for the sake of players who enjoy the game things perk up a bit for them. The whole thing just seems like a massive shame.
 
Madserb2023 said:
Whether you like the game or not, the budget relative to content makes no sense. How do you spend that much money on three maps exactly. There was a time when you would get an 8 hour campaign, a comprehensive multiplayer component with at least 10 maps with a dozen modes at a fraction of the time and cost. Are these companies a front or something? What are they actually doing in that time
Click to expand...

I'd be really curious to see a detailed breakdown of the cost of a game like this.
Like Halo 3 came out 3 years after 2, launched with an 8-10 hours campaign with optional Co-op, 11 multiplayer maps featuring like 5 game modes (with several driveable vehicles) and a map editor in the form of Forge. According to google, at the time Bungie had around 120-150 employees.

Why does a modern game take so much longer, requiere so many more people and cost so much more? Is it literally just the graphics and asset creation? Because it's not even like many of these modern games are much more complex in their design, it's not like we have crazy AI and physics now.
 
Many people propose ideas like addition of PvE-only mode, deathmatch mode, aggression based matchmaking, etc. But I think Bungie won't give in to these ideas and will stick with their vision because of hubris (can't find a better word), that they know better.
 
asdasdasdbb said:
Poland is cheap though I thought. LA is not cheap... and Boston (where CDPR decided to make Cyberpunk 2) is even more expensive.
Click to expand...

I had to look it up and yeah Cyberpunk was over $400 million. Probably like $425-$450 million. Marathon is about $250 million all in. I haven;t even played Marathon yet, so I can;t talk about what it offers. But I have heard the complaints of the 4 maps. Even though I was under the assumption that these maps were suppose to be quite large. The lack of content has been a common complaint. I dunno if they released with a small base game on purpose, or if they already have made additional content ahead of time that they have not yet rolled out? Cyberpunk is the 25th best selling game of all time according to Wikipedia's count. 2077 has a perpetual momentum.
 
dEvAnGeL said:
$10 million development cost

$190 million paying for art theft
Click to expand...

Bra, that was 'settled' and the artist pinky promised they were totally cool with it and everything is right. Well the artist doesn't talk about it much. And what's a little borrowing of ideas, right? Bungie's an indie dev and their art director must be still a college kid still working a second job on a passion project and.... mistakes happen!

On a completely unrelated point, settlements many times involves NDAs. I don't know why I am stating that but... random facts!
 
Last edited:
Madserb2023 said:
Whether you like the game or not, the budget relative to content makes no sense. How do you spend that much money on three maps exactly. There was a time when you would get an 8 hour campaign, a comprehensive multiplayer component with at least 10 maps with a dozen modes at a fraction of the time and cost. Are these companies a front or something? What are they actually doing in that time
Click to expand...
It's like that meme pic someone made a long time ago with Mona Lisa being chipped away. A full game back in the day changed into nickel and dime pieces. And game studios wonder why gamers are suspicious or critical of their products. The studios got to be the dumbest and most toxic positive places ever, or simply a case of purposely churning it out in drips and drabs. Who knows. Probably depends on the studio.

As for fully packed games back in the day being released, that's actually only part of it. Those old school studios also did it with a fraction of the resources and could release a sequel two years later too. And then perhaps another sequel in another two years. And back then hardware architecture was more unique from system to system and a lot of common features now were new back then like online. Somehow they figured all that out 20 years ago.

Now you got crazy maxed out budgets, big resources and 5+ years to make a game.

It's literally like an employee works 2 hours per day. And the rest of the work hours just coasts and goes company sponsored bowling all day.
 
Last edited:
NathanBakes said:
Man these GaaS style games really are a great way to just throw money into the trash, it seems. I know that if you get the lucky ticket you'll be bringing in the serious money for an extended period and that is tempting, but 4-6+ years of dev time and hundreds of millions of dollars just for it to go *poof* is such a major risk, I really struggle to understand.

Bungie could have make a new sci-fi (or whatever) trilogy of single player games, action adventure/RPG, with all the polish in the world and created a new top franchise with massive and dedicated fanbase, with various spinoffs and supplemental media, etc. Of course with these titles you could have still had the multiplayer modes of old, deathmatch, etc, with opportunities for microtransactions and skins, consumables and/or cosmetics.

They have the talent to do the above, I would have thought, with little risk involved. But these GaaS types just always seem to be a roll of a dice, regardless of who you are, regardless of what you have done in the industry.

Marathon is obviously limping on but let us face it, it's looking grim. All of this is puzzling, really. It is like common sense has been lost, completely. You would have expected better from Bungie and Sony at this point, really.

That said, I suppose most of these games coming out right now were greenlit when GaaS was still in its heyday, and the powers that be cannot really be blamed for not knowing GaaS were going to be a more risky bet circa 25/26? I am not an expert on such things, really. I just stick to my boomer games, single player stuff. Marathon isn't my sort of thing, and outside of a bit of Fallout 76 a few years back, I see "GaaS" and I am out, more than likely, anyway. But I hope for the sake of players who enjoy the game things perk up a bit for them. The whole thing just seems like a massive shame.
Click to expand...
Why do you people always assume single player games will magically fix everything? They're the same risk but with a shit ROI. Unless you have extremely established IP then it won't make a dent. And if you do have an establishde IP depending on the type you can make a Marvel Rivals.
 
Those animated short films they released leading up to the game would have cost a huge amount to make as well.

They probably would've had more success if they remade one of the games from the 90s. Or made a sequel to them.
 
Last edited:
boomtimesbaby said:
Why do you people always assume single player games will magically fix everything? They're the same risk but with a shit ROI. Unless you have extremely established IP then it won't make a dent. And if you do have an establishde IP depending on the type you can make a Marvel Rivals.
Click to expand...
You are right, they carry risk too, I just feel a legendary dev starting a new single player project has options to pivot, if a game releases and sales are weak, or gets bad feedback, etc. These GaaS games seem like a massive gamble right off the bat with not much room for failure, which was the point of my post. They seem more risky to me, in that regard, but like I said maybe I am wrong I am no expert on the GaaS genre.

GaaS also cost a fuck ton to keep online, I believe I have heard, which is where much of the risk comes from. Marathon has about 20,000 players, it cost 200 milli. Let us be completely honest here, it is totally fucked.

Let us also be honest, a single player, first person shooter, made by Bungie likely would have sold pretty fucking well if it was a traditional, story-rich game ala Halo. Single player games cost 0 dollars to run, but you can also charge like $80 for them. I would have been amazed, like totally and utterly shocked if a single player Bungie game didn't sell a million in a week.

Unlike this ultra-hardcore, only online, multiplayer shooter that is what $40? Limping on, haemorrhaging players, at a dev cost of $200 million.
 
gundalf said:
Waterfall development has lost nothing in multiplayer games (unlike story driven games)
Click to expand...
Waterfall isn't used in gamedev since a few decades ago. Now mostly everybody, particularly in GaaS, uses variants of agile / scrum methodologies.

gundalf said:
6 years and $200 Mil... an adult daycare called Bungie, what a joke.
Click to expand...
No, 6 years and >$200M (and sometimes even >$300M) is called an average AAA game in 2026.

Aressa said:
Over 200m? On what???
Click to expand...
Total game development + marketing budgets, like any AAA of this generation.

boomtimesbaby said:
Why do you people always assume single player games will magically fix everything?
Click to expand...
Because they aren't aware of the reality of the market in things like:
  • Modern AAA budgets and the revenue/ROI difference both in amount and how are they spread over time between somewhat successful GaaS and non-GaaS
  • Risk that means that if a AAA game flops that team needs around 5-9 years to release another game when revenue is focused in the start (so benefits of having recurring, predictable revenue over time from catalog games)
  • Benefits of being able to shut down a project before having funded its whole vision
  • Percentage of game gameplay time revenue coming from GaaS vs non-GaaS heavily leaning to GaaS and growing every year
  • Percentage of game revenue coming from catalog titles (games released in previous years) vs games released that year heavily leaning to catalog, with a percentage that keeps growing every year
  • Devs have to justify budgets of millions of dollars with a reasonable business plan that convinces those who pay the millions of dollars and want/need them back
Related to this, same goes with AAA games/devs needing to go crossgen and multiplatform
 
Last edited:
boomtimesbaby said:
Why do you people always assume single player games will magically fix everything? They're the same risk but with a shit ROI. Unless you have extremely established IP then it won't make a dent. And if you do have an establishde IP depending on the type you can make a Marvel Rivals.
Click to expand...
Not "magically", but SP has a lot less variables that can make things go wrong, it is also much easier to make one with reduced budgets (which i'd say is the main problem that needs addressing)
 
Guilty_AI said:
Not "magically", but SP has a lot less variables that can make things go wrong, it is also much easier to make one with reduced budgets (which i'd say is the main problem that needs addressing)
Click to expand...
The budgets stem from employing people in big American cities. It's not like they get a fixed amount of money. And no SP doesn't have a lot less variables it's the same thing really. Again IP is all that matters it's why we're in a quagmire of legacy sequels & remakes. Well, east euro/asian devs seem to be carrying the torch but only because it's cheap to make stuff there.
 
Last edited:
boomtimesbaby said:
Why do you people always assume single player games will magically fix everything? They're the same risk but with a shit ROI. Unless you have extremely established IP then it won't make a dent. And if you do have an establishde IP depending on the type you can make a Marvel Rivals.
Click to expand...
It's not just about ROI, but simply giving gamers options and variety.

A lot of gamers dont give a shit talking sales or CCU. They just care about gaming.

A strictly SP game can be played at any time. A MP game that has a full package of options like having a SP campaign and lots of content (including offline bot mode matches) gives lots of content too. Even if the game's online user base goes to zero you can still play the game how you want against the CPU. Even old ass games like Unreal back around 2000 had many MP modes you can play against the CPU. You werent forced to play against others. And gamers could do their own servers too, so it can last forever.

A game like Marathon is strictly online with other gamers, no SP options at all, and doesnt even have a lot of content to begin with. Once this kind of game dies off when the online base does, it's done for good 100%. And just to cement it, the studio will shut it down too with zero flexibility to give gamers to host their own servers.

So the overall thinking is why get trapped in a game's ecosystem when it can be gimped in gaming or shut down. A SP game or MP with lots of options can last.
 
Last edited:
boomtimesbaby said:
The budgets stem from employing people in big American cities. It's not like they get a fixed amount of money. And no SP doesn't have a lot less variables it's the same thing really. Again IP is all that matters it's why we're in a quagmire of legacy sequels & remakes. Well, east euro/asian devs seem to be carrying the torch but only because it's cheap to make stuff there.
Click to expand...
This industry was build on single player games, so lets not pretend is like this great mistery, what happens is that devs in the western big AAA companies (mostly in the us but not only) lost touch with gamers in the last years and the budgets exploded mostly because for sheer mismanagement and inefficiencies (marathon being a excellent example even though is gaas...200+mil for 4 years , 3 maps and dogshit art style, absolutely nothing justifies)

But then you got GOY , 80 mil and it was selling better than GOT, "oh but it looks like a dlc" fuck it, you cant have it all, not all games needs to be cutting edge like GTA6.

Expedition33 was cheap and is making butt loads of money, just like indie games like Hollow Knight, AA games like Hades. And asian games and so on.

Single player games can be highly lucrative if you manage time and budget with great ideas connected with what gamers like, again is not some big fcking mistery.

The problem is not that SP are risky.. is that western devs at this moment make it risky. A lot has to change if this companies want to stop being closed and devs fired because of their sheer incompetence.
 
Last edited:
Alex Scott said:
I don't believe this. Just like how Concord supposedly cost $400 million. Total BS. $100 million likely. $150 million possibly. But $250 million? No way.
People who claim marketing cost another $200 million make no sense. Where is that even going? Streamers?
Click to expand...
Any form of marketing is ridiculously expensive. Is like the wedding industry, everyone and their long lost uncle gets a cut.
 
boomtimesbaby said:
The budgets stem from employing people in big American cities. It's not like they get a fixed amount of money.
Click to expand...
You can still reduce it by reducing scope, cutting features, using cheaper tools, etc. It is generally easier to make a cheap traditional game than a cheap GaaS.

boomtimesbaby said:
And no SP doesn't have a lot less variables it's the same thing really.
Click to expand...
Traditional games don't need to worry about: balancing to make sure players keep constant engagement (especially an issue for PvP), cheaters, content changes and how it affects old players vs attracts new, player economy (in-game or from recurring monetization), robust backend infrastructure, community management, and so on.

boomtimesbaby said:
Again IP is all that matters it's why we're in a quagmire of legacy sequels & remakes.
Click to expand...
IP definitely has a lot of pull, but it is not the be all end all solution for success. We already have plenty of examples that show otherwise (expedition 33, palworld, schedule 1, Hades, wukong, Satisfactory, etc). If anything, developer pedigree appears to matter a lot more. (Elden Ring, cyberpunk 2077, deltarune, Crimson Desert, etc)
 
Bernardougf said:
This industry was build on single player games, so lets not pretend is like this great mistery, what happens is that devs in the western big AAA companies (mostly in the us but not only) lost touch with gamers in the last years and the budgets exploded mostly because for sheer mismanagement and inefficiencies (marathon being a excellent example even though is gaas...200+mil for 4 years , 3 maps and dogshit art style, absolutely nothing justifies)

But then you got GOY , 80 mil and it was selling better than GOT, "oh but it looks like a dlc" fuck it, you cant have it all, not all games needs to be cutting edge like GTA6.

Expedition33 was cheap and is making butt loads of money, just like indie games like Hollow Knight, AA games like Hades. And asian games and so on.

Single player games can be highly lucrative if you manage time and budget with great ideas connected with what gamers like, again is not some big fcking mistery.

The problem is not that SP are risky.. is that western devs at this moment make it risky. A lot has to change if this companies want to stop being closed and devs fired because of their sheer incompetence.
Click to expand...
This industry was built on single player games? How so?

Most of my childhood was spent playing Sensible Soccer, IK+ Mario Kart. Goldeneye, Quake, Steet Fighter 2 Mortal Kombat etc etc

The industry was built on just decent games. Fuck off with the elitist single player bullshit.
 
Last edited:
Bernardougf said:
This industry was build on single player games, so lets not pretend is like this great mistery, what happens is that devs in the western big AAA companies (mostly in the us but not only) lost touch with gamers in the last years and the budgets exploded mostly because for sheer mismanagement and inefficiencies (marathon being a excellent example even though is gaas...200+mil for 4 years , 3 maps and dogshit art style, absolutely nothing justifies)

But then you got GOY , 80 mil and it was selling better than GOT, "oh but it looks like a dlc" fuck it, you cant have it all, not all games needs to be cutting edge like GTA6.

Expedition33 was cheap and is making butt loads of money, just like indie games like Hollow Knight, AA games like Hades. And asian games and so on.

Single player games can be highly lucrative if you manage time and budget with great ideas connected with what gamers like, again is not some big fcking mistery.

The problem is not that SP are risky.. is that western devs at this moment make it risky. A lot has to change if this companies want to stop being closed and devs fired because of their sheer incompetence.
Click to expand...
Tech always has lots of money. No different than the dot com bust. Banks and investors groups can be the biggest cheapskates opening their wallets when it comes to many industries, but toss out some crazy dot com, tech or a AAA game idea that will take on Amazon or Fortnite and suddenly everyone's eyes bulge out as suddenly the gold chest opens as wide as possible. Just make it and let customers download it and it's easy billions of sales.
 
clarky said:
This industry was built on single player games? How so?

Most of my childhood was spent playing Sensible Soccer, IK+ Mario Kart. Goldeneye, Quake, Steet Fighter 2 Mortal Kombat etc etc

The industry was built on just decent games. Fuck off with the elitist single player bullshit.
Click to expand...
That's 16-bit gaming and after.

There's a lot more to gaming in earlier generations, and also big SP games throughout all generations. PC gaming didnt really get lots of MP gaming till the net came about, since most PC gamers arent going to sit together at a desk playing side by side. Console gaming always had multiple gamepads for MP gaming in front of a TV making MP easier and comfy, but the biggest hits back in the day were skewed heavy to SP focused like Mario or Tetris or classic arcade games.

Many popular MP games will also have many people not even playing it MP, but SP. I played Unreal online, bit never played Quake II online. I played SFII back in the day too.... arcade, Genesis, SNES. Most of my play time was SP against the cpu. Only a small part of it was played against other people in the arcade or against my brother.
 
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige said:
That's 16-bit gaming and after.

There's a lot more to gaming in earlier generations, and also big SP games throughout all generations. PC gaming didnt really get lots of MP gaming till the net came about, since most PC gamers arent going to sit together at a desk playing side by side. Console gaming always had multiple gamepads for MP gaming in front of a TV making MP easier and comfy, but the biggest hits back in the day were skewed heavy to SP focused like Mario or Tetris or classic arcade games.

Many popular MP games will also have many people not even playing it MP, but SP. I played Unreal online, bit never played Quake II online. I played SFII back in the day too.... arcade, Genesis, SNES. Most of my play time was SP against the cpu. Only a small part of it was played against other people in the arcade or against my brother.
Click to expand...
I'm just saying the statement that the industry was built on single player titles is nonsense.

Sure you can play those titles back in the day against bots or the CPU but they are primarily designed as multiplayer games.

Most of my playtime back in the day on multiplayer games was against mates and family, not the CPU.

Edit: The biggest selling third party game on the SNES was Street fighter 2 btw. Like I said the industry was build on just decent games. Single player, multiplayer and sometime both at the same time.
 
Last edited:
clarky said:
Im just saying the statement that the industry was built on single player titles is nonsense.

Sure you can play those titles back in the day against bots or the CPU but they are primarily designed as multiplayer games.

Most of my playtime back in the day on multiplayer games was against mates and family, not the CPU.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

Kind of depends on a person's game style and how far back you go. It seems you played more games MP, while I did SP against the cpu. I played lots of MP too (some sports games like basketball and hockey) but for some games like fighters it was almost all SP.

Anyone playing lots of Apple/PC games in the 80s or early 90s most did it SP I'd assume unless someone wanted to do hot seat gaming. Even when I played Summer and Winter Games we did hot seat MP gaming, or we just said screw it and did SP on our own.

For older games before 16-bit, a lot of games technically did have MP, but were designed as SP. A lot of arcade games back in the 80s had 2P options, but it was taking turns getting high scores. Super Mario on NES had 2P, but I dont think anyone would consider that really a MP game though you took turns.
 
StreetsofBeige said:
Fair enough.

Kind of depends on a person's game style and how far back you go. It seems you played more games MP, while I did SP against the cpu. I played lots of MP too (some sports games like basketball and hockey) but for some games like fighters it was almost all SP.

Anyone playing lots of Apple/PC games in the 80s or early 90s most did it SP I'd assume unless someone wanted to do hot seat gaming. Even when I played Summer and Winter Games we did hot seat MP gaming, or we just said screw it and did SP on our own.

For older games before 16-bit, a lot of games technically did have MP, but were designed as SP. A lot of arcade games back in the 80s had 2P options, but it was taking turns getting high scores. Super Mario on NES had 2P, but I dont think anyone would consider that really a MP game though you took turns.
Click to expand...
Summer games (2 was better), Winter Games. Track and Field, Daily Thompsons, International football, Pitstop, Super Sprint, One on One basket ball, Racing destruction set,, Pong? You know what I'm saying. All these games are multiplayer first, pre 16 bit.

Both have co existed since the dawn of games.
 
clarky said:
I'm just saying the statement that the industry was built on single player titles is nonsense.

Sure you can play those titles back in the day against bots or the CPU but they are primarily designed as multiplayer games.

Most of my playtime back in the day on multiplayer games was against mates and family, not the CPU.

Edit: The biggest selling third party game on the SNES was Street fighter 2 btw. Like I said the industry was build on just decent games. Single player, multiplayer and sometime both at the same time.
Click to expand...
Hello. Men_in_Boxes here. Big multiplayer fan.

I'm of the opinion that they're right and that it's OK.

Of the top 20 best selling NES games, only 2 featured multiplayer modes (Dr Mario and Ice Hockey).

While single player has run out of steam over the last 20 years (imo) I think it can be credited as mostly laying the groundwork for what games have become. Multi-player was rare, relatively speaking, from 1970 - 1996. The N64 started to get that ball rolling until online play birthed the new era.
 
Men_in_Boxes said:
Hello. Men_in_Boxes here. Big multiplayer fan.

I'm of the opinion that they're right and that it's OK.

Of the top 20 best selling NES games, only 2 featured multiplayer modes (Dr Mario and Ice Hockey).

While single player has run out of steam over the last 20 years (imo) I think it can be credited as mostly laying the groundwork for what games have become. Multi-player was rare, relatively speaking, from 1970 - 1996. The N64 started to get that ball rolling until online play birthed the new era.
Click to expand...
Not in my world.

Multiplayer was rare until 1996? What are you smoking?

You never played Track and Field, Karate Champ? Gaunlet? Pitstop 2? Pong?

I never owned a NES btw.
 
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes said:
Hello. Men_in_Boxes here. Big multiplayer fan.

I'm of the opinion that they're right and that it's OK.

Of the top 20 best selling NES games, only 2 featured multiplayer modes (Dr Mario and Ice Hockey).

While single player has run out of steam over the last 20 years (imo) I think it can be credited as mostly laying the groundwork for what games have become. Multi-player was rare, relatively speaking, from 1970 - 1996. The N64 started to get that ball rolling until online play birthed the new era.
Click to expand...
Arcades were a thing you know. More lucrative and technologically superior even. In some ways they were the "GaaS" of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marathon Season 2 Trailers
2
76
450
Zacfoldor replied
  • Featured
Marathon |OT| A Shell of its Former Self.
|OT|  108 109 110 111 112
6K
9K
sodstall replied
Marathon - Reviews Thread
3 4 5 6 7
316
4K
Gamer_By_Proxy replied
Sony to double down on Marathon
3 4 5 6 7
323
1K
Sohurmk833 replied
Look like there are no physical copies of marathon
35
918
DryvBy replied
Top Bottom