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

Forums - Gaming - How will Sony and Microsoft's philosophy towards online gaming change

omgwtfbbq on 11 June 2007
windbane said:
omgwtfbbq said:
windbane said:
Gballzack said:
Hopefully each stop using online gaming as an excuse for decreasing the content in the games they're comming out with. While an online experience is fun, it should only ever be suplemental, not a necessity of gameplay. Hopefully they also stop using their online services to blur the line between PCs and Game Consoles to allow them the convenience of less resources put towards quality control in that any flaw can be patched later. Why the hell should I have to download a patch for anything on a console game, even if its just a supplementary feature? Why are there upgrade crashes? Why is every flaw I left behind on the PC for the convenience of Consoles showing up in my Console Gaming?! Why do I need to play ranked online battles online to eek out the 60 dollars worth of gameplay I payed for? With higher production costs and increasingly longer development time tables on systems like the 360 and PS3 I see a continuing trend of the increasingly shorter and shorter single player aspect of the game and an increased dependency on multiplayer online functions to create the illusion of a much larger game with only the fraction of resources.

A lot of people like online games. You really do act like you work for Nintendo.

And a lot of people like a flashed out single player experience.

Gballzack is correct, a lot more games are starting to leave the Single player experience on the side and just release games with strong multiplayer. Of course, this is not true in all cases (Olivion), but I would love more games to improve their single player experience and have the multiplayer as an addition.

Wii games seem to be going this route, but most likely that's not through choice but because Nintendo's online system is so crappy. I'm all for single player and local multiplayer, that's the entire reason I bought a console rather than just upgraded my PC.


I think you're both completely wrong. Just because there are more online games on consoles does not mean there are fewer single player games. Most of the best games still have great single player experiences. Now, there are also online-only games but it's not like you have to play those.

Every game I've rented so far for the PS3 has had a long single player experience, including the ones with great online elements. Just because some people are saying the multi-player is more fun does not mean the single player experience is not complete. If you don't like Halo's and Gears of War's single player, don't play those games. Play Resistance, heh...

Online games is a much better trend than sloppy ports and crappy mini-games. But I guess all 3 are part of the great variety console games are getting.

I'd also like to point out that patches are generally for the multi-player experience, like Motorstorm's "fix" of the boosting. There's nothing wrong with patches because if the shipped game is terrible and has to be patched it will be punished by reviews of games because they review shipped copies.

In summary: stop whining, online games are great.

you're missing our point. We never said "PS3/360 sucks because there are no good single player games". We just said that hopefully game developers don't see a trend in successful multiplayer games and start ignoring the single player campaign.



Help! I'm stuck in a forum signature!

Around the Network
vizunary on 11 June 2007
BenKenobi88 said:
For people who complain about GH songs being expensive...it's not just an mp3 you're downloading or whatever. Plenty of work goes into each song that gets re-recorded and programmed...I can definitely understand them being 2 or 3 dollars...a standard mp3 that you can only listen to costs $1 usually, so I don't see the big deal.

I'm not sure??? It would seem that initially the s/w would be designed to autoprogram itself, kinda like when inserting a new audio signal into a graphic EQ, though obviously more complicated. I'm sure the final work had to be done by hand, but these costs were most likely absorbed by the initial production.

ckmlb on 11 June 2007
Gballzack said:
Hopefully each stop using online gaming as an excuse for decreasing the content in the games they're comming out with. While an online experience is fun, it should only ever be suplemental, not a necessity of gameplay. Hopefully they also stop using their online services to blur the line between PCs and Game Consoles to allow them the convenience of less resources put towards quality control in that any flaw can be patched later. Why the hell should I have to download a patch for anything on a console game, even if its just a supplementary feature? Why are there upgrade crashes? Why is every flaw I left behind on the PC for the convenience of Consoles showing up in my Console Gaming?! Why do I need to play ranked online battles online to eek out the 60 dollars worth of gameplay I payed for? With higher production costs and increasingly longer development time tables on systems like the 360 and PS3 I see a continuing trend of the increasingly shorter and shorter single player aspect of the game and an increased dependency on multiplayer online functions to create the illusion of a much larger game with only the fraction of resources.

Off topic: How about the people making Wii games that are basically just made for multiplayer such as hte mini game collections or Wii Sports/Play. Using the innovation of motion control as an excuse to make very small low cost games that don't offer much at all except a way to compete against each other using motion control.

I understand it with Wii Sports when it's a pack in (in Japan I don't understand it) or wit Wii Play when it has a controller with it, but what about Rayman or Mario Party or what Playground seems to be doing?

I don't think any game should be full price if it has no substance to the single player game and is only relying on mutliplayer be it online or offline, I think it's a rip off (Shadowrun on 360 included). 

I think a lot of developers are trying to use the Wii for a quick cash in (Nintendo included) on the motion sensing without really making their games deep or meaningful in any way possible. 



Thanks to Blacksaber for the sig!

a.l.e.x59 on 11 June 2007

I think the Wii will take over with online gaming.



windbane on 11 June 2007
omgwtfbbq said:
windbane said:
omgwtfbbq said:
windbane said:
Gballzack said:
Hopefully each stop using online gaming as an excuse for decreasing the content in the games they're comming out with. While an online experience is fun, it should only ever be suplemental, not a necessity of gameplay. Hopefully they also stop using their online services to blur the line between PCs and Game Consoles to allow them the convenience of less resources put towards quality control in that any flaw can be patched later. Why the hell should I have to download a patch for anything on a console game, even if its just a supplementary feature? Why are there upgrade crashes? Why is every flaw I left behind on the PC for the convenience of Consoles showing up in my Console Gaming?! Why do I need to play ranked online battles online to eek out the 60 dollars worth of gameplay I payed for? With higher production costs and increasingly longer development time tables on systems like the 360 and PS3 I see a continuing trend of the increasingly shorter and shorter single player aspect of the game and an increased dependency on multiplayer online functions to create the illusion of a much larger game with only the fraction of resources.

A lot of people like online games. You really do act like you work for Nintendo.

And a lot of people like a flashed out single player experience.

Gballzack is correct, a lot more games are starting to leave the Single player experience on the side and just release games with strong multiplayer. Of course, this is not true in all cases (Olivion), but I would love more games to improve their single player experience and have the multiplayer as an addition.

Wii games seem to be going this route, but most likely that's not through choice but because Nintendo's online system is so crappy. I'm all for single player and local multiplayer, that's the entire reason I bought a console rather than just upgraded my PC.


I think you're both completely wrong. Just because there are more online games on consoles does not mean there are fewer single player games. Most of the best games still have great single player experiences. Now, there are also online-only games but it's not like you have to play those.

Every game I've rented so far for the PS3 has had a long single player experience, including the ones with great online elements. Just because some people are saying the multi-player is more fun does not mean the single player experience is not complete. If you don't like Halo's and Gears of War's single player, don't play those games. Play Resistance, heh...

Online games is a much better trend than sloppy ports and crappy mini-games. But I guess all 3 are part of the great variety console games are getting.

I'd also like to point out that patches are generally for the multi-player experience, like Motorstorm's "fix" of the boosting. There's nothing wrong with patches because if the shipped game is terrible and has to be patched it will be punished by reviews of games because they review shipped copies.

In summary: stop whining, online games are great.

you're missing our point. We never said "PS3/360 sucks because there are no good single player games". We just said that hopefully game developers don't see a trend in successful multiplayer games and start ignoring the single player campaign.


I don't see any signs of developers abandoning single player.  The developer with the most successful online game ever just announced Starcraft 2.  Calm down.  Okay? 



Around the Network
windbane on 11 June 2007
a.l.e.x59 said:
I think the Wii will take over with online gaming.

Well I hope they gave third parties their online kits, then.  So far in the US and Japan it doesn't have online gaming. 



ckmlb on 11 June 2007
windbane said:
a.l.e.x59 said:
I think the Wii will take over with online gaming.

Well I hope they gave third parties their online kits, then. So far in the US and Japan it doesn't have online gaming.


 It does in Japan and this month it will in the US too with Pokemon Battle Revolution...

Took long enough.



Thanks to Blacksaber for the sig!

omgwtfbbq on 12 June 2007
windbane said:
omgwtfbbq said:
windbane said:
omgwtfbbq said:
windbane said:
Gballzack said:
Hopefully each stop using online gaming as an excuse for decreasing the content in the games they're comming out with. While an online experience is fun, it should only ever be suplemental, not a necessity of gameplay. Hopefully they also stop using their online services to blur the line between PCs and Game Consoles to allow them the convenience of less resources put towards quality control in that any flaw can be patched later. Why the hell should I have to download a patch for anything on a console game, even if its just a supplementary feature? Why are there upgrade crashes? Why is every flaw I left behind on the PC for the convenience of Consoles showing up in my Console Gaming?! Why do I need to play ranked online battles online to eek out the 60 dollars worth of gameplay I payed for? With higher production costs and increasingly longer development time tables on systems like the 360 and PS3 I see a continuing trend of the increasingly shorter and shorter single player aspect of the game and an increased dependency on multiplayer online functions to create the illusion of a much larger game with only the fraction of resources.

A lot of people like online games. You really do act like you work for Nintendo.

And a lot of people like a flashed out single player experience.

Gballzack is correct, a lot more games are starting to leave the Single player experience on the side and just release games with strong multiplayer. Of course, this is not true in all cases (Olivion), but I would love more games to improve their single player experience and have the multiplayer as an addition.

Wii games seem to be going this route, but most likely that's not through choice but because Nintendo's online system is so crappy. I'm all for single player and local multiplayer, that's the entire reason I bought a console rather than just upgraded my PC.


I think you're both completely wrong. Just because there are more online games on consoles does not mean there are fewer single player games. Most of the best games still have great single player experiences. Now, there are also online-only games but it's not like you have to play those.

Every game I've rented so far for the PS3 has had a long single player experience, including the ones with great online elements. Just because some people are saying the multi-player is more fun does not mean the single player experience is not complete. If you don't like Halo's and Gears of War's single player, don't play those games. Play Resistance, heh...

Online games is a much better trend than sloppy ports and crappy mini-games. But I guess all 3 are part of the great variety console games are getting.

I'd also like to point out that patches are generally for the multi-player experience, like Motorstorm's "fix" of the boosting. There's nothing wrong with patches because if the shipped game is terrible and has to be patched it will be punished by reviews of games because they review shipped copies.

In summary: stop whining, online games are great.

you're missing our point. We never said "PS3/360 sucks because there are no good single player games". We just said that hopefully game developers don't see a trend in successful multiplayer games and start ignoring the single player campaign.


I don't see any signs of developers abandoning single player. The developer with the most successful online game ever just announced Starcraft 2. Calm down. Okay?

 Starcraft 2 also happens to be one of the most successful online games ever. But even so, once again, you are missing the point. Where did I ever say "SINGLE PLAYER GAMES ARE DOOMED!!!!111one"? I just said I hope that this trend does not materialise. And I will leave the discussion here.



Help! I'm stuck in a forum signature!

windbane on 12 June 2007

The trend of successful multiplayer games has been there for many years already and yet there are still great single player games.  You can't change what Gballzack said, which was that the trend is already taking away from the single player experience.  You can't "stop" if it never started.  I got the points, but you seem to be ignoring mine.



Tispower on 12 June 2007

I hope that online gaming is continually made better, because when more and more people buy into third-gen consoles, I think it will be very cool (especially in online cooperative campaigns) to play with your friends and relatives that you would usually be unable to play with.

Also, unless Microsoft makes their Gold service free, I feel that many people will think in the nxt 2 years "Why should I pay for a service that is only marginally better than PSN/Whatever Nintendos one will be called?"



One person's experience or opinion never shows the general consensus

PSN ID: Tispower

MSN: tispower1@hotmail.co.uk