By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Sarkar on 27 September 2019
Edit Thread
Azzanation said:
hunter_alien said:

They are not removing anything, as the game is still not out yet. Love to see companies having the confidence to do what they think is best for their games, and to know that they don't have to rely on an inferior addition to the game just to feel that they have reached some kind of quota.

The internal studios under MS could learn a thing or two from this kind of development culture Maybe their newly purchased toy studios will manage to get there in like 2 more generations...

Why would we want MS to learn from this? So you are saying MS should consider cutting features out of there games? Do we want the next Halo Infinite to exclude a multiplayer mode? No thanks.

Toy Studios? What do you mean by Toy studios?

Sarkar said:

They already said they're going to make it, just not as a half baked mode but rather as something that can stand on it's own. 

Guerrilla Games is also making a Multiplayer title. Clearly they don't want to make Multiplayer games with tacked on Campaigns or Single Player games with tacked on Multiplayer. All that does is make the overall product look bad. If a game is SP only people judge it based solely on that, but it has a Multiplayer that's not as good as the Single player or vice versa the entire game suffers for it. 

We've seen Rockstar do it with GTAV and RDR2, and CDPR is planning the same with CP2077. These are the best devs out there, If they're all doing something it's likely the right call. While lesser devs just keep offering more half baked products.

Tacked on? If the company is good enough they can achieve both a great SP and MP modes without it being tacky. I am not sure with previous Sony titles, maybe they felt tacked on for you and by removing the feature completely will benefit your desire however that doesn't work for everyone. I actually enjoyed the MP in TLOU and I will remain a little disappointed that I wont be doing that again in the sequel with my friends. Until its confirmed I am not holding onto false hope for it to be included. If what you say comes to truth than it better be free, if its a paid (tacked) on feature if I use your words than that's charging gamers twice which is no different to MTs.

They've already confirmed they're making it, but after they finish the Single player game itself. 

At this point there are two choices, either push back the release till both are finished or release the single player now and then work on the MP after. The vast majority of TLOU fans don't care much for MP if at all, so what's the problem with them getting the part they want now and those who care about the MP can get it later rather than everyone waiting till later? Please explain to me exactly why you think this is bad.

As for selling it as a standalone title being the same as MTs? I'd disagree. You're acting like this game needs the multiplayer to be worth it's $60 dollars, which you know damn well is BS. There's games with a tiny fraction of the production value this game has that sell for $60. Nintendo fore instance sells low budget remakes and remasters of old games that cost them pennies to make and sell them for $60, people seem perfectly fine with it. Tons of single player only games that have a fraction of the content this game will have sell for $60, people seem fine with it. Xbox fans were not only fine but defensive of Sea of Thieves, and Crackdown 3 games that had the graphics of last gen titles with no polish or even worthwhile content clearly made on a budget smaller than what it costs to make an hour of Last of Us 2. You're not owed a multiplayer mode. They're telling you what you're getting for the $60 which is the "Most ambitious, biggest and longest Naughty Dog game ever", if you think that's not worth the $60 then don't buy it.