• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

4 Reasons Why Multiplayer Has Taken Over...

How do you view the premise posed by the OP?

  • More or less valid. I may or may not like it, but OP is somewhat reasonable in his take.

  • OP has a massive blind spot about single player. I'll explain below.


Results are only viewable after voting.

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
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.

tumblr_n67o0hA19S1s8hnhko1_500.gif
 

Wildebeest

Member
With the current always online tech environment, producers have become obsessed with user engagement metrics. Multiplayer games seem to drive engagement reliably, but there is more to life than just compulsively replaying the same content. What that sort of content relies on is creating an urge in the player they can never really satisfy, an itch they can never quite scratch. What single player games offer, at best, is the promise of a "peak experience". At some point in the game, you experience some new feeling, like something memorable and fulfilling. But you do not have to compulsively replay the game every day or buy new content to impress other people with your ideological commitment to the game. You can just stop playing.

So the good thing about single player games is that they are less inclined to have to "take over" your life in order to be considered good. Taking over is a not good thing to ask a corporation like Activision or EA to do to your life.
 
Last edited:

kunonabi

Member
I play more multiplayer games now because there are fewer single player games that interest me, more fighters have passable netcode, and online multiplayer is no longer only fps deathmatch shit.
 

Bartski

Gold Member
"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.
I'm sure you're pretending you don't see the difference.
(...) 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...


I understand what it means, I've seen quite a bit of the video and I still think we're nowhere near the ability to experience stories with such impact in co-op as solo, especially if they should emerge from human interaction.
Maybe if you play with friends all equally invested in not ruining it for one another, or you're just incredibly lucky matchmaking. I'm not saying it's not an interesting direction I wish gets explored further, just that we're definitely not even close, let alone those areas being taken over.
 

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
I'm sure you're pretending you don't see the difference.
Of course there's a difference. The point I'm trying to illustrate is that multiplayer interaction carries multiple forms and degrees.

The vast majority of the "never multiplayer" type has not comprehended all the potential combinations he has not explored.

I understand what it means, I've seen quite a bit of the video and I still think we're nowhere near the ability to experience stories with such impact in co-op as solo, especially if they should emerge from human interaction.
So being Han Solo would be less impactful in your eyes than watching a Han Solo?
I'm not saying it's not an interesting direction I wish gets explored further, just that we're definitely not even close, let alone those areas being taken over.
Multiplayer has already surpassed Single Player in terms of popularity, engagement, and revenue. The take over already happened. The Rubicon is behind us.
 

Arachnid

Member
There is a place for both OP. I need both Bloodborne and Siege in my life.

Gun to my head though? If I had to choose one? Even with the potentially 1000+ hours I have on siege? Bloodborne.
 

EDMIX

Member
Social interaction is powerful and these type of dynamic gameplay situations literally can't be done in single player titles right now.

So imagine how much fun we had with N64 with Mario Kart...Smash Bros, now consider those games online with Wii, Wii U, Switch, 3DS etc have moved more units then any of their titles prior to that. With the new generation of consumers, they are born into a concept of social media, any of us 30 plus years old didn't have all that back then.

So of course you can see as they come of age, they will favor gaming with how they already socialize. Those of us who got those single player classics and grew up with limited options for MP, as that category got bigger, I think many of us simply fell back to MP titles or concepts we could understand or are found of.

Me being a fan of BF, many on here being fans of Call Of Duty or Halo, I think that might be where a lot of that ends with such an age group as the classic BF, COD, Halo concepts resonate with our demographic much more then Fortnite or something. So you'll continue to see MP titles come and go as the market is massive, but I don't see anything with a "take over" or anything like that as single player titles still have a massive market.

You have titles moving 20 or 30 million, of course its nothing like 100, 200 or 400 or even 600 million of some of those giants, but a sizeable market that can't be ignored none the less.
 

Bojji

Member
Even if no more single player games would be made from this point there are still tons of games I never played, this way I can avoid playing MP games for the next 30 years of my life...

Only MP thing that is remotely interesting to me is the way FS games work and maybe some co-op tiles but other than that I simply don't care.
 

Guilty_AI

Member
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.
Not always, and i'm talking on a perspective of bringing in money. If its popularity alone, its more correct to say GAAS (not necessarely multiplayer focused) tend to be more popular, which is natural since the devs are always adding new content to the game.

Because formula games get gobbled up by innovative, creative game design.
It clearly doesn't. Otherwise we wouldn't be having match 3 games making over $1 Billion per year.

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.
You really have a bone to pick with arena shooters.....
We also had one million Battle Royales fail despite being 'innovative'. For every successful multiplayer title out there we have 100 flops from the same genre, its just how it works.
Its a flimsy market and the ones who can grab the attention of players (aka marketing, aka money) and keep it (aka frequent stream of content, aka money) are usually the ones who come on top.

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.
Habit is a powerful thing. If you ever study stuff like marketing, the way these games are designed, or even something as simple as UI, you'll see how a lot of these seemingly simple and fleeting things deeply affect the way we behave.

Pretty sure i showed this video to you before. Its a game developer, talking about game development, saying the same thing as i am now.


Without fun, game dies.
Wrong. Without new content a game dies. The average person doesn't care about fun, most don't even understand what fun is. They merely seek comfort in repeating the same things over and over in their habits.
All the developer of these sorts of games need to do is create in them this habit and make sure things are kept just fresh enough so the player never notices how much boring and mundane what he's doing actually is.

I don't even think thats necessarely a bad thing, what is bad is the way some devs exploit that weak state of mind of ours to make money.
 

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
Not always, and i'm talking on a perspective of bringing in money. If its popularity alone, its more correct to say GAAS (not necessarely multiplayer focused) tend to be more popular, which is natural since the devs are always adding new content to the game.
This is addressed by point #4. Tattoos wouldn't exist if others couldn't see them.

It's significantly more lucrative/effective to drop new content in a multiplayer game because of its natural advantages.

It clearly doesn't. Otherwise we wouldn't be having match 3 games making over $1 Billion per year.
NeoGAF doesn't consider match 3 phone games "real games". That's an entirely different market than the one I'm discussing (PC+Console gamers)

You really have a bone to pick with arena shooters.....
We also had one million Battle Royales fail despite being 'innovative'. For every successful multiplayer title out there we have 100 flops from the same genre, its just how it works.
This is a fly by comment that is obviously incorrect. The Battle Royale success rate over the last 5 years is not comparable to the Arena Shooter success rate in the same time period.

It's not just Arena Shooters either. Racing games used to be much more popular. Platformers too. Point and Click Adventure games etc...

Some genres die out while others thrive.

Its a flimsy market and the ones who can grab the attention of players (aka marketing, aka money) and keep it (aka frequent stream of content, aka money) are usually the ones who come on top.
Did PUBG have a lot of marketing and money when it first launched on PC? Did it have a frequent stream of content during its first fee blistering months on the market when it grew and grew in popularity?

Habit is a powerful thing. If you ever study stuff like marketing, the way these games are designed, or even something as simple as UI, you'll see how a lot of these seemingly simple and fleeting things deeply affect the way we behave.

Pretty sure i showed this video to you before. Its a game developer, talking about game development, saying the same thing as i am now.

The developer in this video doesn't explain why entire genres have fallen out of popularity and why multiplayer has shot past single player as gamings torchbearer.

The points raised in the OP do a better job at that.

Wrong. Without new content a game dies. The average person doesn't care about fun, most don't even understand what fun is.
This is such a crazy statement.

First, it's so easy to disprove that I'm certain you could do it in a few seconds if we disabled your bias chip. Roller Champions and Knockout City delivered a steady stream of new content right out of the gate. Both games essentially died in their first month. PUBG and Fortnite had no content during their first month. They skyrocketed in popularity because of superior game design that appeals to human nature more. When you formulate an opinion or statement, you have to view it critically before it gets sent to press.

Secondly, try not to become this meme.

3fe08de4f530a20fc01ef6ec7da754b9.png


Your line of thinking shouldn't be "I don't like (multiplayer GAAS) therefore I'll lob any crazy attack at them without considering the validity." You're a good person Guilty_AI Guilty_AI , multiplayer deserves better criticism though.
 

Godot25

Banned
There is only one reason
Because you can fuck other people mom's. At least through chat.

SP games just don't offer that kind of experience.
 
Last edited:

Elitro

Member
I enjoy MP, even in SP games if well done.

A great example of this is ofc the soul series. I love doing my thing and seeing players dying in unexpected traps or reading their messages (but hole messages always cheered me up a bit, especially during the rougher parts of the game).

I still believe SP games have its place, but i'm also excited for the ready player one reality, even if dystopian :)
 

k_trout

Member
I tried The Finals a few weeks back and im too old for multiplayer, just don't enjoy it anymore
last time I enjoyed MP was CS.Source when it came out lol
 

Guilty_AI

Member
This is addressed by point #4. Tattoos wouldn't exist if others couldn't see them.
A. You don't know that.
B. A metaphor isn't a point.

NeoGAF doesn't consider match 3 phone games "real games". That's an entirely different market than the one I'm discussing (PC+Console gamers)
A. NeoGAF isn't a hivemind, and even if it was what it would thinks or not think isn't a set fact.
B. The same can be applied to PC/console games, otherwise we wouldn't be having a dozen Battle Royales, looter shooters, hero shooters and what not coming out all the time.

This is a fly by comment that is obviously incorrect. The Battle Royale success rate over the last 5 years is not comparable to the Arena Shooter success rate in the same time period.

It's not just Arena Shooters either. Racing games used to be much more popular. Platformers too. Point and Click Adventure games etc...

Some genres die out while others thrive.
What you're missing here is that the reason for one genre's success and the other failure isn't innovation. Rogue games are old as fuck and now they're suddenly very popular. Also, you're completely ignoring CSGO, COD and Valorant exist, though not technically arena shooters, are still games about running around a small map with short rounds, which according to you is too outdated of a concept to be successful.

Did PUBG have a lot of marketing and money when it first launched on PC?
No, but it did have an innovative approach to marketing. The reason for their success at the time was the way they advertised the game. They gave free keys to tons of streamers, which at the time wasn't something very common to do.

Did it have a frequent stream of content during its first fee blistering months on the market when it grew and grew in popularity?
It had the advantage of being the first widely popular game of its kind, much like CS, many people already developed an habit of playing it.

And it still lost space to other BRs from developers with much deeper pockets.

The developer in this video doesn't explain why entire genres have fallen out of popularity and why multiplayer has shot past single player as gamings torchbearer.

The points raised in the OP do a better job at that.
Because thats just how trends work and not really an important point to discuss. Why were slasher horror movies popular in the 80s and now super hero movies are the popular ones? Its definitely not because one is better than the other.

This is such a crazy statement.
Its a crazy world after all.

First, it's so easy to disprove that I'm certain you could do it in a few seconds if we disabled your bias chip. Roller Champions and Knockout City delivered a steady stream of new content right out of the gate. Both games essentially died in their first month. PUBG and Fortnite had no content during their first month. They skyrocketed in popularity because of superior game design that appeals to human nature more. When you formulate an opinion or statement, you have to view it critically before it gets sent to press.
Those games had problems with their business models, like paywalls, delays or overestimation on how much people would be immediatly interested in them. In fact, there was plenty of interest in Roller Champions from the looks of it, but because Ubisoft is too greedy/incompetent and doesn't want to invest in a game that didn't became the next Fortnite as soon as it released, they dropped it.

Secondly, try not to become this meme

3fe08de4f530a20fc01ef6ec7da754b9.png
Sounds like you need to take your own advice. Have you ever read your own comments on single player games and arena shooters? Your views of the gaming scene are far too deterministic.

Your line of thinking shouldn't be "I don't like (multiplayer GAAS) therefore I'll lob any crazy attack at them without considering the validity." You're a good person Guilty_AI Guilty_AI , multiplayer deserves better criticism though.
I don't 'hate' neither Multiplayer nor GAAS. I play Elden Ring coop with friends and will soon try out Vermintide 2 with them, I like Deep Rock Galactic and Wreckfest, i think Monster Hunter is a great series, i played Genshin and ETS2 for a good while...

But the truth remains that these are types of games that are surrounded by greed and poor practices, and it was through those that the current big-profile games got where they are today.

You have this obssession with the notion that certain multiplayer games are somehow the next step of evolution, but you clearly haven't been involved in the scene long enough to know how the gaming market works. Even in a previous thread you were making your points as if persistent online, social media games and MMORPGs weren't something that spawned 30 years back, with many from the time being even more complex than popular modern games.
It would be great if innovation and creativity determined how successful a game becomes, but the truth is that its just one small factor among many others, some far more important, like business models and current trends.
 

ResurrectedContrarian

Suffers with mild autism
They skyrocketed in popularity because of superior game design that appeals to human nature more
Oof, Fortnite is a masterclass in poor game design.

Anyhow, I get the feeling from the pro-multiplayer side (or really, pro-free-to-play season games, it seems to me... no one appears to even remember the range of more serious multiplayer genres here like RTS, etc) is that popularity has some relationship to quality.

First, popularlity can't be measured off of kids and teens. Their position in this market is 100% exploitation. The gacha-style business of these games and incessant licensing is one visible part of the horribly depressing landscape for kids corporate-led media and entertainment, and it's impossible for anyone to defend that without either being intellectually bankrupt or outright evil, pick one. You can see the brain leaking out of the head when kids lock into Fortnite all day, and I'm a parent. The number one thing you can do as a parent is find friends for your kid who are never from families who would let their minors plug into that for 5 hours a day.

Once you rightly toss all the stats from minors in the trash bin as irrelevant, it's hard to know where things stand. But the subtle implication above that popularity is always justified or signals quality is bizarre. Cheap phone games are amongst the most popular by sheer numbers, after all. And reality TV won over the cheap broadcast networks not because of quality, but because the sad reality is that cynically pursuing the weakest parts of human nature makes a quick buck.
 

Griffon

Member
I'll be honest, the multiplayer landscape barely changed in 20 years.

While the game design got better and more varied (many game modes nowadays are more indepth than your typical deathmatch), the genres and the people it appeals to are still very much the same.

MMOs still appeal to a lot of those gamer types you like to talk about, and those have been around forever. Diablo-likes, versus fighting games, competitive FPS, mobas. All of those genres evolved over time but are still very close to their roots.
Most live service games are pretty much based off Diablo 2 mixed with another genre (usually shooters or third person action).

The biggest change was in how the monetization is handled (with now season pass and gacha instead of buying a box and expansions), which gave birth to the "live service" moniker.
 
Last edited:

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
A. You don't know that.
B. A metaphor isn't a point.


A. NeoGAF isn't a hivemind, and even if it was what it would thinks or not think isn't a set fact.
B. The same can be applied to PC/console games, otherwise we wouldn't be having a dozen Battle Royales, looter shooters, hero shooters and what not coming out all the time.


What you're missing here is that the reason for one genre's success and the other failure isn't innovation. Rogue games are old as fuck and now they're suddenly very popular. Also, you're completely ignoring CSGO, COD and Valorant exist, though not technically arena shooters, are still games about running around a small map with short rounds, which according to you is too outdated of a concept to be successful.


No, but it did have an innovative approach to marketing. The reason for their success at the time was the way they advertised the game. They gave free keys to tons of streamers, which at the time wasn't something very common to do.


It had the advantage of being the first widely popular game of its kind, much like CS, many people already developed an habit of playing it.

And it still lost space to other BRs from developers with much deeper pockets.


Because thats just how trends work and not really an important point to discuss. Why were slasher horror movies popular in the 80s and now super hero movies are the popular ones? Its definitely not because one is better than the other.


Its a crazy world after all.


Those games had problems with their business models, like paywalls, delays or overestimation on how much people would be immediatly interested in them. In fact, there was plenty of interest in Roller Champions from the looks of it, but because Ubisoft is too greedy/incompetent and doesn't want to invest in a game that didn't became the next Fortnite as soon as it released, they dropped it.


Sounds like you need to take your own advice. Have you ever read your own comments on single player games and arena shooters? Your views of the gaming scene are far too deterministic.


I don't 'hate' neither Multiplayer nor GAAS. I play Elden Ring coop with friends and will soon try out Vermintide 2 with them, I like Deep Rock Galactic and Wreckfest, i think Monster Hunter is a great series, i played Genshin and ETS2 for a good while...

But the truth remains that these are types of games that are surrounded by greed and poor practices, and it was through those that the current big-profile games got where they are today.

You have this obssession with the notion that certain multiplayer games are somehow the next step of evolution, but you clearly haven't been involved in the scene long enough to know how the gaming market works. Even in a previous thread you were making your points as if persistent online, social media games and MMORPGs weren't something that spawned 30 years back, with many from the time being even more complex than popular modern games.
It would be great if innovation and creativity determined how successful a game becomes, but the truth is that its just one small factor among many others, some far more important, like business models and current trends.

Let's try this. Let's try to sum up eachothers position in the simplest manner.

You believe that multiplayer game design hasn't appreciably changed or advanced in recent years. You believe what has changed, is that publishers and developers started to hire psychologists to inject games with underhanded hooks to get gamers addicted. It's those practices that have led to the surge in multiplayer popularity, not game design advancements.

Do I basically have your position summed up here? If I have that correct, can you sum up my position in a similar manner?
 
Last edited:

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
Oof, Fortnite is a masterclass in poor game design.

Anyhow, I get the feeling from the pro-multiplayer side (or really, pro-free-to-play season games, it seems to me... no one appears to even remember the range of more serious multiplayer genres here like RTS, etc) is that popularity has some relationship to quality.

First, popularlity can't be measured off of kids and teens. Their position in this market is 100% exploitation. The gacha-style business of these games and incessant licensing is one visible part of the horribly depressing landscape for kids corporate-led media and entertainment, and it's impossible for anyone to defend that without either being intellectually bankrupt or outright evil, pick one. You can see the brain leaking out of the head when kids lock into Fortnite all day, and I'm a parent. The number one thing you can do as a parent is find friends for your kid who are never from families who would let their minors plug into that for 5 hours a day.

Once you rightly toss all the stats from minors in the trash bin as irrelevant, it's hard to know where things stand. But the subtle implication above that popularity is always justified or signals quality is bizarre. Cheap phone games are amongst the most popular by sheer numbers, after all. And reality TV won over the cheap broadcast networks not because of quality, but because the sad reality is that cynically pursuing the weakest parts of human nature makes a quick buck.

What's cringier?

An adult, telling a bunch of 13 year old kids "Mario Bros 3 sucks. You're being tricked into thinking it's great!", circa 1990.

Vs

An adult telling a bunch of 13 year old kids "Fortnite sucks. You're being tricked into thinking it's great!", circa 2022.
 
Last edited:

Naru

Member
It's the opposite. People don't get the validation they crave in real life anymore because they spend more time on their digital devices, mostly alone. That is why they look for this validation online in multiplayer games or apps. This will only lead to more and more people being alone because why should I go outside and socialize with people that think I am fat or ugly or weird when I can turn on Meta and be anyone I want and where people actually like and appreciate me as you can see by all the thumbs up I get every day?
Same with shooters etc. "I can't run 1 km without throwing up but I could beat you on CoD every day of the week". That is the new normal and I fucking hate it....
 
Last edited:

ResurrectedContrarian

Suffers with mild autism
What's cringier?

An adult, telling a bunch of 13 year old kids "Mario Bros 3 sucks. You're being tricked into thinking it's great!", circa 1990.

Vs

An adult telling a bunch of 13 year old kids "Fortnite sucks. You're being tricked into thinking it's great!", circa 2022.
I have no problem telling minors that they are fundamentally idiots : ) If I had my way, the minimum voting age would be at least 30.
 

Guilty_AI

Member
Let's try this. Let's try to sum up eachothers position in the simplest manner.

You believe that multiplayer game design hasn't appreciably changed or advanced in recent years. You believe what has changed, is that publishers and developers started to hire psychologists to inject games with underhanded hooks to get gamers addicted. It's those practices that have led to the surge in multiplayer popularity, not game design advancements.

Do I basically have your position summed up here? If I have that correct, can you sum up my position in a similar manner?
Sarcasm aside - if you ever looked into the software and service development area you'd be utterly shocked with just how much thought goes into this 'psychologist stuff' as you put it (there are good reasons for some countries making laws estabilishing that receiving advertisement after installing a software must be opt-in and not opt-out) - my position is the following:

-Multiplayer game design - monetization aside - hasn't changed all that much in the large picture, and not necessarely for better or worse. Most changes are more in the direction of making them more casual and user friendly. Not in terms of more complexity, depth nor scale - if anything those got smaller because the casual public doesn't like learning curves that are too steep.

-Monetization has '''''evolved''''' quite a lot in multiplayer and GAAS. That doesn't directly make those games more popular, but it does make them more profitable, which in turn makes them more desirable for publishers to invest in. The larger profits turn into investment thats directed towards increasing and keeping their user base, which is a large part of the reason they can grow so popular, though not necessarely the only one.

-Social elements do play a part in their popularity. However, constant investment, new content, business models and - yes - vile monetization that exploits the weaker part of our minds (or just weak minded people like kids) tend to play much larger roles.
We have tons of games with social elements - including many single player ones with outstanding and innovative mechanics and systems that check all the boxes you want - that cannot get as popular as Fortnite which doesn't even have all that great game design.
Having the money to make a Spider-Man crossover will manage to net you more numbers than implementing a new interesting mechanic, thats just how the world works.

-Multiplayer has always been very popular and profitable. Since games in general have grown in popularity over the last 15 years, multiplayer naturally followed suit.

=========>

Now, if i understand your position correctly, you're saying Multiplayer games grew in popularity because they have more evolved game design.

Problem is, many of the things you point out as being innovative, aren't really new and have been present in games for a long time, in even better forms in some cases. Thats why many people here can't agree with your arguments.
 
Last edited:

ResurrectedContrarian

Suffers with mild autism
As long as you agree that you were duped at age 13 too, I have no issue with your position. At least you're consistent.
I'm trying to keep an appropriate sense of humor about it, but I will counter here by saying: not necessarily.

The key question: is the current generation uniquely duped compared to prior generations? My answer is "definitely."

Why? Some of this is covered in other replies above, but it's undeniable that there has been an enormous qualitative shift in the relationship between game companies and their players, and in how they target customers.

The online world brings a load of analytics and data to the table. It means that you're no longer tracking simply "how many people will buy this complete game" but instead "what specific kinds of interactions can keep the player hanging on, make them pull out a credit card, tag a friend, replay the match," etc. Every individual player interaction is charted on analytics funnels to see how it impacts downstream revenue, a gigantic cynical machine.

In a sheer count of numbers, you'd find that companies behind titles like Fortnite are spending tremendously more money on analytics and psychological manipulation than they are on game devs. Unfortunately we don't have their internal numbers, but I'd wager that the money involved in directly developing the game (rather than player manipulation, data analysis, etc) is a tiny fraction.

This was objectively not the case when Mario 3 was made (running along with the example provided above). The actual on-the-ground developers like Miyamoto and Tezuka were dedicated entirey to the gameplay itself, and these purely creative & techinical guys who created the little gameplay ideas were the ones in charge of the entire direction of the project without interference.

The world has changed dramatically for the worse in many domains like this one. Compare newspapers. Every local town and city once had a newspaper of their own with full-time salaried professionals who could dedicate themselves to journalism. Now? Due to the nature of the online market and how profits must be driven solely by ads on user engagement (rather than physical purchases and subscriptions, which like boxed games required a heavier investment on the part of the customer), nearly every once-noble paper has disintegrated into pure clickbait. It's a horribly depressing reality.

The same has happened with gaming, with notable exceptions and islands of integrity left however.
 
Last edited:

Generic

Member
Yes, multiplayer is better. Why? Because AI is limited. Playing against other people will push the gameplay mechanics to the limits. Even things like leaderboards in single-player games push things to another level.
 

Generic

Member
There is a place for both OP. I need both Bloodborne and Siege in my life.

Gun to my head though? If I had to choose one? Even with the potentially 1000+ hours I have on siege? Bloodborne.
Bloodborne is, like every Souls games, a multiplayer game. Playing a Souls game offline is pretty much like not playing it at all.
 

ResurrectedContrarian

Suffers with mild autism
Bloodborne is, like every Souls games, a multiplayer game. Playing a Souls game offline is pretty much like not playing it at all.
I only play this series offline. It's perfect that way. The last thing I want in Bloodborne or Elden Ring is other humans. The solitude of a depressing corner of the landscape or anticipation in a dungeon is totally ruined by idiotic messages from other random people.

It's not even like offline-only is some seconary toggle in the settings, it's right there on the intro screen as one of the 2 main modes.

Yes, multiplayer is better. Why? Because AI is limited. Playing against other people will push the gameplay mechanics to the limits. Even things like leaderboards in single-player games push things to another level.
That depends 100% on the genre. Rocket League is nice online (though the introductions of "seasons" style content made it trash), but that's due to its style of gameplay. In other games, the AI is perfect as a computer, because its motivations are correclty handled for all the various challenges or characters you meet. Humans have inherently shitty motivations when online, they just screw around and ruin things, unless they are your personal friends rather than randoms.
 
Last edited:

VaultMcfly

Neo Member
I've stopped playing most multiplayer games because they just became too repetitive, but something that keeps making me back to CSGO and Team Fortress 2, even after 8 years of playing both, is the fact that the community can keep the servers alive and have free will to make new game modes, new maps, servers, etc. Most recent multiplayer titles have always the same problem: issues with the community manager, companies that don't listen to the player's feedback, greed, GaaS, loot boxes, and battle passes, and you only play on dedicated servers. I just hope singleplayer games never die, I still prefer them over multiplayers.
 
Last edited:

Generic

Member
I only play this series offline. It's perfect that way. The last thing I want in Bloodborne or Elden Ring is other humans. The solitude of a depressing corner of the landscape or anticipation in a dungeon is totally ruined by idiotic messages from other random people.

It's not even like offline-only is some seconary toggle in the settings, it's right there on the intro screen as one of the 2 main modes.


That depends 100% on the genre. Rocket League is nice online (though the introductions of "seasons" style content made it trash), but that's due to its style of gameplay. In other games, the AI is perfect as a computer, because its motivations are correclty handled for all the various challenges or characters you meet. Humans have inherently shitty motivations when online, they just screw around and ruin things, unless they are your personal friends rather than randoms.
Souls games are designed to play with the danger of being invaded by another 'soul' (player), helping or being helped in coop and interacting with the messages (what if someone is trying to deceive me?). Left 4 Dead has a offline mode too, but it still is designed to play with four brains.

As for the AI, at some point you can memorize its patterns.
 

ResurrectedContrarian

Suffers with mild autism
As for the AI, at some point you can memorize its patterns.
That's what makes a game a game, in many cases. Memorizing the patterns of Mega Man bosses, for instance, is a huge part of the draw of the franchise. You're learning to master a system that is at first overwhelming, by learning the unique patterns of your enemy. That really has nothing in common with the kind of competition in multiplayer games. Other humans have nothing to offer that kind of genre and play style, they exist for a completely different audience.

I greatly prefer systems to humans.

Souls games are designed to play with the danger of being invaded by another 'soul' (player), helping or being helped in coop and interacting with the messages (what if someone is trying to deceive me?). Left 4 Dead has a offline mode too, but it still is designed to play with four brains.
That's one layer they added on top to have a unique twist on an online mode, while still retaining a primarily single-player style to the game's setup overall... but it's by no means necessary to the games. Sekiro doesn't even have online mode, and is one of the purest systems and iterations of their games.
 
Last edited:

Arachnid

Member
Bloodborne is, like every Souls games, a multiplayer game. Playing a Souls game offline is pretty much like not playing it at all.
I have the opposite opinion. If you coop your way through a souls game, you basically aren't playing it. First run should always be solo to get the real experience.

After that, delve into PvP and have some fun (not in Bloodborne; worst PvP scene in the series).
 

TintoConCasera

I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
Bloodborne is, like every Souls games, a multiplayer game. Playing a Souls game offline is pretty much like not playing it at all.
Imo summoning in those games is for weaklings that aren't able to beat the bosses on their own. Same for the spirits in Elden Ring, it's basically the easy mode.
 
Last edited:

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
Sarcasm aside - if you ever looked into the software and service development area you'd be utterly shocked with just how much thought goes into this 'psychologist stuff' as you put it (there are good reasons for some countries making laws estabilishing that receiving advertisement after installing a software must be opt-in and not opt-out)
I think we're actually in agreement here. What we don't seem to be in agreement about is that this "psychologist stuff" is being used on every multiplayer game. Ubisoft is one of the largest publishers on earth. They're obviously using all the underhanded tricks in every game they release.

So how do you explain HyperScape?

How do explain all the multiplayer flops we've seen over the last X number of years when so many of said flops have been made by these massive publishers who employ psychologists on their dev teams?

And also, how do you explain successes from small studios like Valheim, Among Us, Fall Guys, Roblox, Unturned etc...All games from resource strapped studios that have all grown into big successes.

To me, I have to jump through one hoop. The "good game" hoop. The titles that succeeded did so because they're great games. They're all games that started figuring out the 4 rules in the OP better than their competition.

Doesn't it feel like you have to jump through a bunch of crazy hoops trying to nail down what seedy practice worked here and failed there?

-Multiplayer game design - monetization aside - hasn't changed all that much in the large picture, and not necessarely for better or worse. Most changes are more in the direction of making them more casual and user friendly. Not in terms of more complexity, depth nor scale - if anything those got smaller because the casual public doesn't like learning curves that are too steep.
What era of multiplayer games do you think was the most complex?

-Monetization has '''''evolved''''' quite a lot in multiplayer and GAAS. That doesn't directly make those games more popular, but it does make them more profitable, which in turn makes them more desirable for publishers to invest in. The larger profits turn into investment thats directed towards increasing and keeping their user base, which is a large part of the reason they can grow so popular, though not necessarely the only one.
So wait...has multiplayer grown more popular than single player or not? I feel like you're saying two different things.

-Social elements do play a part in their popularity. However, constant investment, new content, business models and - yes - vile monetization that exploits the weaker part of our minds (or just weak minded people like kids) tend to play much larger roles.
We have tons of games with social elements - including many single player ones with outstanding and innovative mechanics and systems that check all the boxes you want - that cannot get as popular as Fortnite which doesn't even have all that great game design.
Having the money to make a Spider-Man crossover will manage to net you more numbers than implementing a new interesting mechanic, thats just how the world works.
And yet Fortnite got pretty popular before the first major crossover event. Plus there's this...

afaa6a05-eb13-4fb0-b03c-420b95aca516_2.02fd2b4c5848543bf1eb3d501fcc2fe6.jpeg


I don't know how many times I have to say it...but IP doesn't matter in multiplayer. It's basically as useful as high production value graphics.

It's like you're saying "Seinfeld was only popular because all the big advertisers put their expensive commercials on during it."

No. Seinfeld was popular because people were drawn to the writing + acting.

-Multiplayer has always been very popular and profitable. Since games in general have grown in popularity over the last 15 years, multiplayer naturally followed suit.
So your position is that single player and multiplayer games have grown in popularity in scale with eachother?! It's only the newer monetization models that have led to a surge in investment from big publishers towards multiplayer!

Well suck me sideways...

I think I can get you to agree on something. The rate of growth among SP (single player) and MP (multiplayer) isn't a perfect constant. If SP has grown 142.76 percent in popularity since 2006, the odds of multiplayer growing at 142.76 percent in the same time frame is...unlikely.

You'd agree with that right?
 
Last edited:

Guilty_AI

Member
I think we're actually in agreement here. What we don't seem to be in agreement about is that this "psychologist stuff" is being used on every multiplayer game. Ubisoft is one of the largest publishers on earth. They're obviously using all the underhanded tricks in every game they release.

So how do you explain HyperScape?

How do explain all the multiplayer flops we've seen over the last X number of years when so many of said flops have been made by these massive publishers who employ psychologists on their dev teams?

And also, how do you explain successes from small studios like Valheim, Among Us, Fall Guys, Roblox, Unturned etc...All games from resource strapped studios that have all grown into big successes.

To me, I have to jump through one hoop. The "good game" hoop. The titles that succeeded did so because they're great games. They're all games that started figuring out the 4 rules in the OP better than their competition.

Doesn't it feel like you have to jump through a bunch of crazy hoops trying to nail down what seedy practice worked here and failed there?


What era of multiplayer games do you think was the most complex?


So wait...has multiplayer grown more popular than single player or not? I feel like you're saying two different things.


And yet Fortnite got pretty popular before the first major crossover event. Plus there's this...



I don't know how many times I have to say it...but IP doesn't matter in multiplayer. It's basically as useful as high production value graphics.

It's like you're saying "Seinfeld was only popular because all the big advertisers put their expensive commercials on during it."

No. Seinfeld was popular because people were drawn to the writing + acting.


So your position is that single player and multiplayer games have grown in popularity in scale with eachother?! It's only the newer monetization models that have led to a surge in investment from big publishers towards multiplayer!

Well suck me sideways...

I think I can get you to agree on something. The rate of growth among SP (single player) and MP (multiplayer) isn't a perfect constant. If SP has grown 142.76 percent in popularity since 2006, the odds of multiplayer growing at 142.76 percent in the same time frame is...unlikely.

You'd agree with that right?
Again, seems the whole problem here is that you're being too deterministic in your views.
You're hellbent on the notion: "These games are popular. That could only possibly be because they're revolutionary right!!?" - That just isn't how the market works.

Will every game with underhanded monetization be successful? Of course not. But neither will a game with revolutionary mechanics become the next big thing, heck it might not even make the charts. Even if properly developed and market it might just find a small niche at best.
Dwarf Fortress is probably the most complex and mechanically deep game that exists out there, but barely anyone plays it due to how difficult it is to get into it.

Can you be successful without being underhanded? Yes, but thats not whats happening these days, which is why many people are bitter about the current multiplayer and GAAS landscape. Most big developers like EA, Epic, Ubisoft, Rockstar, etc. would rather choose the cynical way, the one i keep describing. Does that mean anyone who picks the cynical way will be successful? No.

You mentioned Among Us, you know why the game became a fad? Some popular streamer randomly decided to play it... two years after its release. Before that no one ever heard of it. Do you have any idea how many other "Among Us" exist out there among us(lol) that haven't and never will be found? This is just to demonstrate one of the facets of what actually makes a game sucessful.
 
Last edited:

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
Again, seems the whole problem here is that you're being too deterministic in your views.
You're hellbent on the notion: "These games are popular. That could only possibly be because they're revolutionary right!!?" - That just isn't how the market works.

Will every game with underhanded monetization be successful? Of course not. But neither will a game with revolutionary mechanics become the next big thing, heck it might not even make the charts. Even if properly developed and market it might just find a small niche at best.
Dwarf Fortress is probably the most complex and mechanically deep game that exists out there, but barely anyone plays it due to how difficult it is to get into it.

Can you be successful without being underhanded? Yes, but thats not whats happening these days, which is why many people are bitter about the current multiplayer and GAAS landscape. Most big developers like EA, Epic, Ubisoft, Rockstar, etc. would rather choose the cynical way, the one i keep describing. Does that mean anyone who picks the cynical way will be successful? No.

You mentioned Among Us, you know why the game became a fad? Some popular streamer randomly decided to play it... two years after its release. Before that no one ever heard of it. Do you have any idea how many other "Among Us" exist out there among us(lol) that haven't and never will be found? This is just to demonstrate one of the facets of what actually makes a game sucessful.

I think I've identified your blind spot.

In all of our exchanges, you've really talked up the psychological, underhanded aspect of successful multiplayer games and emphatically downplayed the importance of game design. It would be interesting to see what percentage of your words were devoted to one vs the other.

Look at the makeup of a typical multiplayer development team. Guerilla Games probably has 100 - 150 people working on the Horizon multiplayer project. What percentage of those employees are the underhanded evil psychologists? 1%? 3%? Do they even have these people on the team full time or are they contracted during certain points of development?

If the people writing the checks for these studios think the psychologists are only worth such a small part of the payroll, why do you think their impact is so much more?

Here's what I think is happening.

1. You have a bias against modern multiplayer.

2. Therefore if you don't like something, you can't give credit to it. You don't like the idea of quality game design leading to multiplayer success.

3. You then look at todays most successful multiplayer games and CORRECTLY identify that they all employ psychologists to embed hooks into the games.

4. Then you INCORRECTLY say "See, all these games I don't like just have psychologists creating hooks to get people addicted, while ignoring two vital truths. One, a large number of successful multiplayer games today started out without the hooks. Two, a large number of big budget multiplayer games launch with the hooks and flop anyway.

5. You don't like those truths so you sweep them under the rug and focus the **** out of #3.

Come on, I got you pegged don't I? Be honest.
 
Mark my words that coop PvE style games and play spaces are going to surpass PvP soon e.g. 5-10 years away.
 
Last edited:

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
I'm trying to keep an appropriate sense of humor about it, but I will counter here by saying: not necessarily.

The key question: is the current generation uniquely duped compared to prior generations? My answer is "definitely."

Why? Some of this is covered in other replies above, but it's undeniable that there has been an enormous qualitative shift in the relationship between game companies and their players, and in how they target customers.

The online world brings a load of analytics and data to the table. It means that you're no longer tracking simply "how many people will buy this complete game" but instead "what specific kinds of interactions can keep the player hanging on, make them pull out a credit card, tag a friend, replay the match," etc. Every individual player interaction is charted on analytics funnels to see how it impacts downstream revenue, a gigantic cynical machine.

In a sheer count of numbers, you'd find that companies behind titles like Fortnite are spending tremendously more money on analytics and psychological manipulation than they are on game devs. Unfortunately we don't have their internal numbers, but I'd wager that the money involved in directly developing the game (rather than player manipulation, data analysis, etc) is a tiny fraction.

This was objectively not the case when Mario 3 was made (running along with the example provided above). The actual on-the-ground developers like Miyamoto and Tezuka were dedicated entirey to the gameplay itself, and these purely creative & techinical guys who created the little gameplay ideas were the ones in charge of the entire direction of the project without interference.

The world has changed dramatically for the worse in many domains like this one. Compare newspapers. Every local town and city once had a newspaper of their own with full-time salaried professionals who could dedicate themselves to journalism. Now? Due to the nature of the online market and how profits must be driven solely by ads on user engagement (rather than physical purchases and subscriptions, which like boxed games required a heavier investment on the part of the customer), nearly every once-noble paper has disintegrated into pure clickbait. It's a horribly depressing reality.

The same has happened with gaming, with notable exceptions and islands of integrity left however.

You're a smart person and I agree with many of your points buuuut...

You still haven't wrestled with the fact that the majority of multiplayer flops over the last X # years did so while employing psychologists who tried to get players hooked.

You also haven't addressed the fact that many modern multiplayer success stories begin their life WITHOUT employing the same psychologists.

Quality game design with talented creative directors are more vital to success in multiplayer than they are in single player.
 

Naked Lunch

Member
While I do like certain single player genres...
Playing the computer/AI over and over gets so boring after awhile. Hollow.
Playing videogames for story-only is inferior to literally all other media, why even bother the effort? Just read a book.

For my tastes - I need competition against actual humans - this makes learning and practicing videogames actually worthwhile.
I always equated a good multiplayer game to a game of real life street basketball. Its the same thing. And it will never get old.
 

Guilty_AI

Member
I think I've identified your blind spot.

In all of our exchanges, you've really talked up the psychological, underhanded aspect of successful multiplayer games and emphatically downplayed the importance of game design. It would be interesting to see what percentage of your words were devoted to one vs the other.

Look at the makeup of a typical multiplayer development team. Guerilla Games probably has 100 - 150 people working on the Horizon multiplayer project. What percentage of those employees are the underhanded evil psychologists? 1%? 3%? Do they even have these people on the team full time or are they contracted during certain points of development?
Most of these devs work on very specific things, many don't even understand that much about gaming or game design and are there only to get their wages at the end of the month. Its only a certain 1% or 3% that are truly in control of the project.

1. You have a bias against modern multiplayer.
Its more correct to say i have a bias against modern big budget games in general, though not all.

2. Therefore if you don't like something, you can't give credit to it. You don't like the idea of quality game design leading to multiplayer success.
It just doesn't, or isn't as important a factor as you're making out to be. Thats just the truth. Unless by "quality game design" you mean stuff like "How can we better appeal to casuals?" or "How should our ranked matches work?"

3. You then look at todays most successful multiplayer games and CORRECTLY identify that they all employ psychologists to embed hooks into the games.
:messenger_ok:

4. Then you INCORRECTLY say "See, all these games I don't like just have psychologists creating hooks to get people addicted, while ignoring two vital truths. One, a large number of successful multiplayer games today started out without the hooks. Two, a large number of big budget multiplayer games launch with the hooks and flop anyway.
I've mentioned plenty of MP/GAAS games i enjoy or think are good.
And hooks are for keeping, aka the long term game, you start by getting people's attention. Many flop because they can't get either one right, there's tons of devil details after all.
You seem to be under the impression i'm saying 'being evil' is all it takes to be successful. Thats not the case, its by 'being evil AND being smart about it' that you can achieve success through cynicism.

5. You don't like those truths so you sweep them under the rug and focus the **** out of #3.
I've been very clear in my position. On the other hand, you still fail to do justice for your points.
The base of your argument is that MP popularity is tied to innovation. Yet whenever you try to explain how they're innovative, all you can do is bring up concepts that have been around for decades, sometimes better executed yet less successful, some that aren't exclusive to MP games. Don't you think you're getting something terribly wrong with your logic?

Come on, I got you pegged don't I? Be honest.
Keep your kinks out of this mate
 
Last edited:

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
Most of these devs work on very specific things, many don't even understand that much about gaming or game design and are there only to get their wages at the end of the month. Its only a certain 1% or 3% that are truly in control of the project.


Its more correct to say i have a bias against modern big budget games in general, though not all.


It just doesn't, or isn't as important a factor as you're making out to be. Thats just the truth. Unless by "quality game design" you mean stuff like "How can we better appeal to casuals?" or "How should our ranked matches work?"


:messenger_ok:


I've mentioned plenty of MP/GAAS games i enjoy or think are good.
And hooks are for keeping, aka the long term game, you start by getting people's attention. Many flop because they can't get either one right, there's tons of devil details after all.
You seem to be under the impression i'm saying 'being evil' is all it takes to be successful. Thats not the case, its by 'being evil AND being smart about it' that you can achieve success through cynicism.


I've been very clear in my position. On the other hand, you still fail to do justice for your points.
The base of your argument is that MP popularity is tied to innovation. Yet whenever you try to explain how they're innovative, all you can do is bring up concepts that have been around for decades, sometimes better executed yet less successful, some that aren't exclusive to MP games. Don't you think you're getting something terribly wrong with your logic?


Keep your kinks out of this mate

Your position has been clear, but your position doesn't make any logical or rational sense.

Why would EA produce flop after flop when Apex Legends proves they have access to the "psychological tricks" recipe?

Why would Epic Games shutter Unreal Tournament, Paragon, and Save the World when they clearly have access to the psychological tricks holy grail?

Why wouldn't the Rainbow Six Siege team share the recipe with the HyperScape team? Why would Ubisoft not allow said recipe to freely travel to all their studios?

It's because the importance of psychological tricks to drive player engagement is grossly overstated by a religious sect of barbaric single player infidels. Game design is what matters in the multiplayer space.

Just look at the last few years of multiplayer hits + failures and compare them with the 4 points presented in the OP. The fact that we can reliably predict what games will stick and what won't is a feather in my cap, no?
 
Last edited:

Guilty_AI

Member
Your position has been clear, but your position doesn't make any logical or rational sense.

Why would EA produce flop after flop when Apex Legends proves they have access to the "psychological tricks" recipe?

Why would Epic Games shutter Unreal Tournament, Paragon, and Save the World when they clearly have access to the psychological tricks holy grail?

Why wouldn't the Rainbow Six Siege team share the recipe with the HyperScape team? Why would Ubisoft not allow said recipe to freely travel to all their studios?

It's because the importance of psychological tricks to drive player engagement is grossly overstated by a religious sect of barbaric single player infidels. Game design is what matters in the multiplayer space.

Just look at the last few years of multiplayer hits + failures and compare them with the 4 points presented in the OP. The fact that we can reliably predict what games will stick and what won't is a feather in my cap, no?
I can turn that around too. Why would Epic, EA, Ubisoft produce flop after flop even though they have access to your innovative game design holy grail? As i said, you need to stop being so deterministic in your views.
 
Top Bottom