Support NeoGAF

[nial]

I'm not getting much of anything from your posts.
I'm saying SP could benefit MP and you're saying nuh-ahhh without any great reasoning behind it.

And we can say that MP would benefit SP as well (GTA5 being the main evidence of such thing) and that devs should allocate resources and talent into their creation. The truth is that game dev does not work like that.
You essentially have the same 'infinte growth' and 'let's try to appeal to everyone' mindset like some out of touch executive. Why exactly does Fortnite, a live service game at its score with a steadily growing userbase breaking CCU records very often, *need* to spend millions in creating a SP campaign? Your sole argument is the fact that it doesn't catch the interest of old people from a boomer forum from three decades ago, and I find that to be pretty ridiculous.

 

[MSduderino]

OP is right. SP and MP used to compliment each other nicely in many games. GTAV's SP definitely provided a "foot in the door" for GTA online. the MP component gives the game tremendous legs (why its charting top 5-10 still 12 years later). GTAV was the quickest game to sell to a billion $ just 3 days after launch before anyone knew what GTA Online would really be like. If they half ass the single player content to try to shore up GTA online, sales will be less. But this is R*, SP is their bread and butter, they didn't even add MP to RDR2.

 

[Dalbajobas]

And more developers need to understand that.

The excitement for GTAVI is being 100% driven by its single player. Nobody, not even Rockstar care to acknowledge or talk about the MP side.

Rockstar has proven (475M+ views) that people only play the MP side because they want even more SP than the developers can offer and will take anything to stay in that world.

This should not go understated as many people had commented on the potential removal/lower efforts of SP and strong focus on MP in GTAVI.

Sorry MP fan (yes, singular), but MP games are a risk, and should always be complimentary served as a side dish to a well thought out SP.

You know yourself very well R* is going all out MP with GTA6. SP will be amazing yes, but you know they will do 100 MP expansions again and precisely 0 expansions for SP.
SP is just there because they needed to build the world for MP anyway.

 

[bitbydeath]

And we can say that MP would benefit SP as well (GTA5 being the main evidence of such thing) and that devs should allocate resources and talent into their creation. The truth is that game dev does not work like that.

It does work like that and GTAV is a strong example of that. Yes, MP can benefit SP as I stated, by allowing people to stay in that world longer. Your reasoning is all over the place.

You essentially have the same 'infinte growth' and 'let's try to appeal to everyone' mindset like some out of touch executive. Why exactly does Fortnite, a live service game at its score with a steadily growing userbase breaking CCU records very often, *need* to spend millions in creating a SP campaign? Your sole argument is the fact that it doesn't catch the interest of old people from a boomer forum from three decades ago, and I find that to be pretty ridiculous.

It doesn't need to, but could it have benefited from it? Absolutely.

Also Boomers are people over 60 years old. Millennial is the term you're looking for.

 

[MSduderino]

I don't think comparisons to free to play games work. There's a large MP audience willing to spend a ton on in game stuff (whales, <5% of MAU). Free to play games capitalize on that and gain most of their revenue from them. Their engagement is targeted at that small percent of their player base willing to pay them. GTA's engagement is targeted at all players who paid the entry fee.

 

[bitbydeath]

You know yourself very well R* is going all out MP with GTA6. SP will be amazing yes, but you know they will do 100 MP expansions again and precisely 0 expansions for SP.
SP is just there because they needed to build the world for MP anyway.

It'll compliment the SP.
It's not being used as the main attraction/focus.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I think that SP campaigns are in service to mitigating the risk of a live service MP game. Unless you're going F2P, you're probably better suited adding a SP campaign. There's just not much reason to jump into a MP live service game at a price when there are so many F2P options.

It's a reason why I think Sony has been dumb trying to randomly start new FPS live service games when they could easily remake Killzone and Resistance and build off of them.

 

[AJUMP23]

The game is not out. Kind of hard to make that assessment.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

weren't you just saying in another thread how the future was "MP incorporating SP elements" or some other shit and how arc raiders was successful in that or whatever

Men_in_Boxes, the year is 2020: "GAAS will grow because it's better equipped to pull more and more SP gamers in.

NeoGAF: "Preposterous! GAAS will not grow!

NeoGAF, the year is 2025: "Multiplayer games should start catering to us more."

Men_in_Boxes:

I am the Nostradomus of GAAS.

 

[Hideous Snake]

What if a game is only MP with no SP? I don't think thats the case all the time.

SP is part of the DNA of the franchise ffs...
GTA V sold millions and broke records left and right before GTA Online even came out so obviously there's a gigantic audience for SP GTA and R* knows this very well and ignoring them would be straight up retarded, hence why they put so much effort in it.
That doesn't mean this applies for every franchise out there.

Dumb thread mate.

Yup, thats what I came to say.

 

[Wildebeest]

Rich single player is the best onboarding for multiplayer games. In the past huge franchises have cheaped out on the single player or skipped it totally to just max out the minimum work to keep the most hardcore and vocal players, and big IP has died a slow death as the fanbase doesn't regenerate. We have seen huge PvP focused games with no SP content and almost nobody has any idea why they should play it and most don't.

 

[Perrott]

Give me a companion multiplayer game of the scale of Red Dead Online but within the world of Ghost of Tsushima.

And the same, but for The Last Of Us Part II, centered around the W.L.F. against Seraphites conflict.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I am the Nostradomus of GAAS.

You literally thought concord would a groundbreaking revolution for mp games. Same for that sandbox blizzard mmo that got cancelled.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Yes

 

[bitbydeath]

Rich single player is the best onboarding for multiplayer games. In the past huge franchises have cheaped out on the single player or skipped it totally to just max out the minimum work to keep the most hardcore and vocal players, and big IP has died a slow death as the fanbase doesn't regenerate. We have seen huge PvP focused games with no SP content and almost nobody has any idea why they should play it and most don't.

I wish Warhawk arrived with a rich single player side so that more would have played the MP.

 

[nial]

It does work like that and GTAV is a strong example of that. Yes, MP can benefit SP as I stated, by allowing people to stay in that world longer. Your reasoning is all over the place.

Please understand that my reasoning is that no should be looking to replicate an extremely expensive behemoth like GTA. No one can spend the same amount of resources on both fronts (SP and MP) like Rockstar does, no one has even more than 10% of workforce for Rockstar's games.
The sole idea that MP should ALWAYS be in service of SP content is ridiculous in itself looking at the several big live service games that thrive without SP content.
GTA will always be an outlier and should be treated as such.

It doesn't need to, but could it have benefited from it? Absolutely.

I doubt it, you would be taking away resources from live service content, which is what drives playerbase on the game. It's just a bad idea in terms of logistics.

Also Boomers are people over 60 years old. Millennial is the term you're looking for.

 

[bitbydeath]

Please understand that my reasoning is that no should be looking to replicate an extremely expensive behemoth like GTA. No one can spend the same amount of resources on both fronts (SP and MP) like Rockstar does, no one has even more than 10% of workforce for Rockstar's games.
The sole idea that MP should ALWAYS be in service of SP content is ridiculous in itself looking at the several big live service games that thrive without SP content.
GTA will always be an outlier and should be treated as such.

I doubt it, you would be taking away resources from live service content, which is what drives playerbase on the game. It's just a bad idea in terms of logistics.

Devs don't have to replicate what it looks like today. GTA Online started off barebones, just as all the other online services did.

Same for their SP. GTAV wasn't their first entry, this was.

 

[nial]

Devs don't have to replicate what it looks like today. GTA Online started off barebones, just as all the other online services did.

Same for their SP. GTAV wasn't their first entry, this was.

Sure, let's just ask these devs to expand significantly its worforce just for the sake of supporting a MP component because that's what GTA did.
BTW, you can't compare the 2013 gaming landscape to the state of today. A barebones live service game rarely flies these days, just let devs focus on what they want without compromising their vision, and that includes not forcing the inclusion of a SP campaign in a MP focused game because reasons.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

You literally thought concord would a groundbreaking revolution for mp games. Same for that sandbox blizzard mmo that got cancelled.

And Ted Williams only had a .48 on base percentage.

Kneel before Zod!