are multiplayer only games the future?

Playing devils advocate here, why is okay to have a single player only game, and not a multiplayer only? If that's what the developers want to make and gamers want to buy, why should it matter?

 

[quote user="x DogMeat x"]

Playing devils advocate here, why is okay to have a single player only game, and not a multiplayer only? If that's what the developers want to make and gamers want to buy, why should it matter?

[/quote]You seem to be confused. No one said "it's okay to have single player only games, and not multiplayer only". I prefer single player games. Does that mean I wish for all multiplayer games to cease existing? No. There is currently a fine balance of
games which cater to everyone's taste (except hentai enthusiasts). The OP is insinuating that single player games will stop being developed. Which obviously, would be unacceptable.

 

I was asking in general, not specific to this post. There seems to be a lot of negativity when a game is announced as having only multiplayer components. I can understand if it's a franchise that has long since been a single player affair and then going
the multiplayer route (ie: Elder Scrolls Online), but when it's new franchises like Destiny or The Division, it's in the developers vision of what they want the game to be.

 

Why would people be angry at ES:O? It's more like the people have been begging
for ES:O.

 

I really hope not. I feel like the MP should just be an extension of the game's stellar single player campaign.

Honestly when Titanfall announced a non-single player campaign, I really just hoped they could still create a captivating story whilst other random people populate your adventure and either distract you or grief you through YOUR experience. :\

 

[quote user="IsaacClarkeSNL"]

Why would people be angry at ES:O? It's more like the people have been begging
for ES:O.

[/quote]People aren't angry because they named it ES:O and not ES:VI. If that were the case, there would be blood.

 

I'd rather the resources being put into an awful campaign allocated into strengthening the multiplayer experience. Battlefield 4 immediately springs to mind. Imagine if it released with more maps and fewer core issues due to more resource allocation towards
the main part of the product.

 

I'd rather the resources being put into an awful multiplayer allocated into strengthening the single player experience. Assassins Creed 4 immediately springs to mind. Imagine if it released with a larger map and more content due to more resource allocation
towards the main part of the game.

 

I doubt it! although I firmly believe that the majority of games should at least have a single player and co-op option to play the campaign with a friend online. I love me some offline games but I enjoy playing them with friends more. I personally think
skyrim should have had a co-op mode where you and your friend can do quests together and such seeing how the games world is huge. Sometimes games like that need a co-op option, I feel bored sometimes when I play skyrim by myself and just sit there and wish
the game had a co-op option for me to invite a friend to my world. but I don't think multiplayer games will be the future nore do I think they'll only have online games. Gamers won't stand for that.

 

[quote user="X1 LOKI 1X"]

I personally think skyrim should have had a co-op mode

[/quote]You're part of the problem

 

To answer the OP's question...no. That's actually quite ridiculous. I switch back and forth from mp to sp games because sometimes I like a team effort and sometimes I just want to play alone. I'm sure most gamers like to have that option. Some games
are just better off as being single player games. Fallout 3 was very good as it was. Part of what made it so good was that you feel a sense of isolation. I wouldn't want other people mucking up that quiet, desolate environment.

 

I see it as a possibility mainly because of cost. The single player games will be the cheesy ones on your phones, along with some encouragement that only the cool kids play single player games on their phones.

 

Social networking being ingrained is more of problem than seeing SP games go bye-bye.

 

[quote user="Mad Cow Dizease"]

I'd rather the resources being put into an awful campaign allocated into strengthening the multiplayer experience. Battlefield 4 immediately springs to mind. Imagine if it released with more maps and fewer core issues due to more resource allocation towards
the main part of the product.

[/quote]Honestly, i disagree . Getting a game with good campagin and MP is a double better experience. Devs looking to please more a crowd than the other almost always a disappointment. Then you start reading reviews and impressions that say omg coop/MP/campaign
is where the game really shines but ALWAYS that comment is about MP/coop because Devs want to please more the crowd that get bored so fast with singleplayer.

IMHO , If you are to making a game shine , make it shine for both singleplayer and MP or then make it MP only or singleplayer only and stop thinking about the sales if is only a solo game. Solo games can be sold well if if are well done and end being a great
experience like Skyrim, ME 1, DAO etc.

 

[quote user="BootstrapGolem"]
at least two of the biggest games coming out lack any traditional offline single player mode, titanfall and destiny, and a potential other two games that will mix the single player and multiplayer in the division and watch_dogs...will offline games become
a rarity? ps3 has already tried multiplayer only with MAG and warhawk, but those weren't nearly as big publicly as titanfall and destiny. and of course if/when these games succeed, i'm sure we'll see other devs try to capture that magic sotospeak...

i wonder if there might be a point in time when call of duty becomes a multiplayer/single player hybrid as well...that might be the death knell of the budding genre.

[/quote]No