By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Why is there a bias against MP only games?

1. Limited maps.
2. Limited characters.
3. Outrageous DLC plans.
4. Micro transactions.
5. User base goes to zero after one month.
6. Server down.
7. Useless after 2-3 years.

All these for $60. Nope. I better buy Other games.



Around the Network

I'm getting bored really fast with MP only games. I buy the game.. play for the first few days and then switch over to the next game. From time to time I'll get back to it. Currently I am only playing BF4 from time to time. There is no other MP game that interests me. Maybe Splatoon.. once in a month or Mario Kart 8, but you can't consider them MP only.. or maybe you can...

But on the other hand,... I am not much into Multiplayer games. I prefer SP.



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

daredevil.shark said:
1. Limited maps.
2. Limited characters.
3. Outrageous DLC plans.
4. Micro transactions.
5. User base goes to zero after one month.
6. Server down.
7. Useless after 2-3 years.

All these for $60. Nope. I better buy Other games.

I could easily turn that around on single player games lol (not thatI don't love them equally)

1. Short story modes/limited number of missions

2. Limited playable characters, and gameplay variety (that's right, we can keep that)

3. Outrageous DLC plans (let's not kid ourselves, this is almost always true for every game these days, MP or no)

4. You guessed it, Microtransactions lol

5. Replay value goes to nigh 0 after one week, unless it's a good RPG, or otherwise offers various branching stories, or alternate gameplay options

6. Useless after 2-3 years....every game ever that I don't feel nostalgic about, because unless I do, I won't go back and play it after that long

 

 

 

Also, let's not act like the big multiplayer games that people gravitate towards actually all become useless and shut down their servers that quickly. Halo 2 servers were up for like a decade. People are still playing games like Modern Warfare, Halo 3, Team Fortress 2, etc, etc. Do all multiplayer game keep their servers up that long? No, of course not, but that doesn't mean you can't easily get your money's worth out of them.

I'm a huge fan of single player only games, including many with even rather brief campaigns, but I'll be completely honest here, nothing outside of a top tier RPG compares to the value I get out of a good multiplayer game. That's not saying they don't have flaws, but they're not flaws that aren't matched, and often exceeded by single player games.



Jpcc86 said:

I feel "there's not enough content to justify a $60 tag" is argument enough.

If you like MP-only games that's fine, to each his own. Some of us consider multiplayer, specially in FPS games, something that should be a plus/bonus to a game, no the game itself. Again, to each his own.

I agree, also multiplayer games these days are very reliant on payed DLC. In other words not only might $60 be too much for a multiplayer only game, it becomes even more expensive if we include DLC.

So personally in some cases i might actually be willing to pay $60 for a multiplayer game in total, but not only for what you get day one. For example $40 for the game and two DLC packs at $10.



Goatseye said:
Chazore said:

It's rare to see bots in any MP games these days which was why I was happy to see them in games like TF2, Titanfall, Overwatch, Heroes of the storm etc. 

Remember how Titanfall got bashed for having bots in it? Respawn even crafted a mode without bots due to so many voices that weren't even gonna give the game a chance.

Wow, really? Complaining the game has bots in it. Are your serious. WTF is wrong with that option? I always loved bots. I didn't like Titanfall, so I never played it. But I'd never bitch over that option.



Around the Network
archer9234 said:
Goatseye said:

Remember how Titanfall got bashed for having bots in it? Respawn even crafted a mode without bots due to so many voices that weren't even gonna give the game a chance.

Wow, really? Complaining the game has bots in it. Are your serious. WTF is wrong with that option? I always loved bots. I didn't like Titanfall, so I never played it. But I'd never bitch over that option.

Well - and please, someone correct me if I'm wrong on this - I think the complaint was about bots filling the roles of other potential players. Some fans didn't like the idea of 6 vs. 6 matches with grunt bots filling the ranks.

It wasn't about offline bot matches, because, unfortunately, Titanfall doesn't provide those.



Veknoid_Outcast said:
archer9234 said:

Wow, really? Complaining the game has bots in it. Are your serious. WTF is wrong with that option? I always loved bots. I didn't like Titanfall, so I never played it. But I'd never bitch over that option.

Well - and please, someone correct me if I'm wrong on this - I think the complaint was about bots filling the roles of other potential players. Some fans didn't like the idea of 6 vs. 6 matches with grunt bots filling the ranks.

It wasn't about offline bot matches, because, unfortunately, Titanfall doesn't provide those.

Doesn't the bots auto get kicked when a human joins? Or are you saying, once a match starts, the bots stay in. Which would be reallly sad. When Jedi Knight II, a game from 2001, auto kicked bots when a person connected.



archer9234 said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

Well - and please, someone correct me if I'm wrong on this - I think the complaint was about bots filling the roles of other potential players. Some fans didn't like the idea of 6 vs. 6 matches with grunt bots filling the ranks.

It wasn't about offline bot matches, because, unfortunately, Titanfall doesn't provide those.

but still. Doesn't the bots auto get kicked when a human joins? Or are you saying. Once a match starts. The bots stay in. Which would be sad. When Jedi Knight II. A game from 2001, auto kicked bots when a person connected.

Oh no, bots are part of the game. They're in most modes so newcomers can get kills and feel a sense of accomplishment, and also promote a single-player atmosphere in mutliplayer - which was one of Respawn's goals.



Nem said:
ohmylanta1003 said:

That's not a fact. It isn't risky. You're wrong.

Also, most singleplayer campaigns aren't that long, and even so, your arguments are worse than mine.

You are not wrong. Its the world that is wrong! We are all collectively allucinating! You are very unbiased.

You can't honestly say it's a risk. Multiplayer only games coming from well known developers are not a risk. Overwatch falls into that category. Not a risk. And bias doesn't apply here, lol.



I bet the Wii U would sell more than 15M LTD by the end of 2015. He bet it would sell less. I lost.

Angelus said:
daredevil.shark said:
1. Limited maps.
2. Limited characters.
3. Outrageous DLC plans.
4. Micro transactions.
5. User base goes to zero after one month.
6. Server down.
7. Useless after 2-3 years.

All these for $60. Nope. I better buy Other games.

I could easily turn that around on single player games lol (not thatI don't love them equally)

1. Short story modes/limited number of missions

2. Limited playable characters, and gameplay variety (that's right, we can keep that)

3. Outrageous DLC plans (let's not kid ourselves, this is almost always true for every game these days, MP or no)

4. You guessed it, Microtransactions lol

5. Replay value goes to nigh 0 after one week, unless it's a good RPG, or otherwise offers various branching stories, or alternate gameplay options

6. Useless after 2-3 years....every game ever that I don't feel nostalgic about, because unless I do, I won't go back and play it after that long

 

 

 

Also, let's not act like the big multiplayer games that people gravitate towards actually all become useless and shut down their servers that quickly. Halo 2 servers were up for like a decade. People are still playing games like Modern Warfare, Halo 3, Team Fortress 2, etc, etc. Do all multiplayer game keep their servers up that long? No, of course not, but that doesn't mean you can't easily get your money's worth out of them.

I'm a huge fan of single player only games, including many with even rather brief campaigns, but I'll be completely honest here, nothing outside of a top tier RPG compares to the value I get out of a good multiplayer game. That's not saying they don't have flaws, but they're not flaws that aren't matched, and often exceeded by single player games.

It definitely works both ways, no doubt about that. Also not to forget that there are still MP games being played online on PC like TF2, CS, Planetside 2, LoL, Dota 1-2, etc, on consoles the numbers die by the gen along with the next big game. Numbers only seem to drop on PC when it's a shit port, stupidly expensive or locked to a client no one likes along with lacking mod support and a proper server browsr (looking at EA for those examples, all of them prime)



Mankind, in its arrogance and self-delusion, must believe they are the mirrors to God in both their image and their power. If something shatters that mirror, then it must be totally destroyed.