Multiplayer Thwarts Single Player? The Question Of Cash

1
Posted July 25, 2011 by Jon Rana in Articles

call of duty black ops annihilation hazard 1 600x300 Multiplayer Thwarts Single Player? The Question Of Cash

The question that is cropping up more and more at the moment is whether games that can offer organic long term value through online multiplayer, are destined to be given a heavier price tag in the future. Obviously videogames have been flirting with multiplayer modes for decades, but in the past couple of years we’ve seen the industry really starting to enthusiastically embrace the medium of online play.

You can see some of the early effects of this growing culture when you see how the prices of single player only games are being cut down massively after barely a month of release. Publishers are cramming team deathmatch and CTF into any game they can, in hopes that it will help increase the shelf life of their titles.

The underlying question is whether we feel you can materially compare the limitless depth a game like Uncharted will provide via multiplayer mayhem, with the narrative fantasy immersing experience something like Batman: Arkham City will give you. I think a lot of people recognize and understand that single player games still have a huge production value and the publishers need to make their money back and profit in order to feasibly fund a sequel.

The fact of the matter is though that the way games like Call Of Duty and Halo completely saturate every gaming household on the face of the planet, this question of value is already being answered by sales figures. How long before something shifts to accommodate this obvious demand?

The options are twofold: either the games with online modes will take a price rocket up their rear ends and start costing more (but worth considering whether high quality DLC is the most kosher business model for publishing giants), or single player games like God Of War, Castlevania and Heavy Rain will start launching at a lower price point in order to still compete with the multiplayer canon.

Hypothetically if the second option were to come true, would this then affect the length and quality of single player games? Despite the popular rise of ‘worldwide gun theatres’, I have a huge amount of faith in the videogame narrative and the stories it can tell.

Some cynics argue that multiplayer will eventually smash apart the solo games, but I think gamers enjoy the variety and freshness that games like L.A. Noire, Portal 2 and Mass Effect can offer. Maybe pricing will be mixed up a bit, but I don’t believe for a second that multiplayer will ever replace the single player experience.

Thoughts folks? Do find you rent most of your single player games and save your hard earned for the stuff with multiplayer?


Did you enjoy this article? If so, we’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments below. It would be great if you subscribed to our RSS feed, followed us on Twitter or liked us on Facebook. There’s lots more where this came from!


From Around The Web



About the Author

Jon Rana

A trim chap who is alarmingly adept with a pack of cards. Oh and he greatly enjoys writing about lots of different things...including monkeys...and various varieties of cheeses.

  • C Goodmurphy

    I’m much more of a single player gamer. Multiplayer interests me for short bursts, but I don’t play it all that often to be honest. The campaign is what’s always more important to me and I usually play it solo. Co-op with friends is fun at certain times, but I don’t constantly search for randoms online to play with.

    I feel that most games don’t need multiplayer. When they shoe-horn it in, the campaign usually suffers for a mediocre to poor online mode. Only specific games need multiplayer.

    I rent a lot, but have always bought a lot of games. It’s dependent on quality, long-term investment and the amount of time I foresee myself putting into said title. Of course, it also depends on how cheap I am at that given point.