Your login information returned multiple users. Please select the user you would like to log in as and re-type in your password.
Community Question is a new feature I thought we would try here at 4 Player Podcast. Here I will pose a question to the entire community for open discussion in the forums. To join in on the discussion follow the link at the bottom. If you aren’t registered already, do so and join in.
This question (Dare I say QUANDRY!) came to me while I was at the Halo: ODST release party a number of weeks ago. I’ve never been a big fan of the Halo series but I was interested in trying out the multiplayer component that Halo is truly known for. Is the single player really even necessary in these tournament style games? Counter Strike and Left 4 Dead have done just fine with no real single player story mode to speak of…could games like Halo and the Modern Warfare series also do without? Or, at the very least, expand their user base by offering a cheaper multiplayer component separate from the whole retail game?
This, my friends, is the question.
Should developers begin offering the multiplayer component of their games as a purchase option for a cheaper price (say 30-35 dollars) devoid of the single player, as well as the entire retail package option?
And, another thought,….
…would doing this hold back progress in terms of overall game development by showing developers that games can still sell without spending development time on the single player game?
Enter the discussion in our forums HERE
-Joseph-
Comments
15 years ago
I like the new feature for the blog. Interesting question.
I'm looking forward to more of these.
15 years ago
Its an interesting idea, to only offer the multiplayer experience of a game at lowered price, but what about the single player experience? Would you suggest offering that as a stand-alone product itself or forcing players to buy the combined SP/MP experience bundled together?
There are several games that I can think of that have survived based purely on their MP experience. Quake 3 Arena, Unreal Tournament, Wolfenstein:ET, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. As you can see, this usually benifits the FPS community, since many shooters just have a tacked on single player mode while centralizing the game around multiplayer.
One game I can think of that's not a shooter and has actually done something as you've described is Guild Wars. This game actually offers a full Single Player storyline to players but also allows users to spend 10 dollars to simply have a PVP only account. Those who only play PVP actually enjoy doing this, while players like myself (who bought the full game) can choose to play either PVE or PVP.
I like the idea, there's certainly an opening in the market for such an idea, with players saving money due to the economy and the seasons coming up. I would see it as a risk worth taking for developers.
I don't believe it would stall progress for developers at all. I would always place single player as a priority over MP. If it were me I would release the multiplayer experience as a seperate function a few months after the initial release (maybe 5 or 6 months, to do any patches to balance the gameplay, fix bugs, ect) the thing devs need to be mindful of is that some of the longest lasting multiplayer games usually have new content being added. Counterstrike, Team Fortress 2, Quake 3, WoW, and countless other games have new maps, gametypes, weapons, quests, abilities, and other things to keep interest going. You need something to keep players coming back.
I'm just rambling now, so I'll stop now.