“You can see that in 2006, one year into the release of the Xbox 360 and the launch year of the PlayStation 3, 67% of the games had online multiplayer, 58% had offline multiplayer and 28% had no multiplayer. By 2012, you can see that only 42% have online multiplayer, a drop of 25%, 44% have offline multiplayer, a drop of 14%, and 41% have no multiplayer, a rise of 16%. So, over time, fewer and fewer high definition console games are including multiplayer as part of their core offering.”
- Geoffrey Zatkin, the Chief Operating Officer of EEDAR
I have noticed recently that more and more games are focusing on the multiplayer aspect of gaming. I’d say there are only a few titles left that focus on this, the obvious ones being Call of Duty, FIFA and Gears of War. However, does a game need to have multiplayer to be good?
One of the most recent games I played was Tomb Raider, completed it within about 3 days and I was completely immersed in the single player campaign. However, I tried multiplayer and I just didn’t get any thrills from it. I used to play Call of Duty often as I absolutely loved kicking other peoples behinds and hearing them rage or whatever, but now I just have no interest in it. I haven’t played a game online since Tomb Raider, and even then it was just about trying it out. I feel games that focus on single player campaigns are always going to triumph over the multiplayer games. I find it a little sad when single player focused games add a multiplayer feature, because they could use that memory on the disc to add to the campaign that was already there and create something larger than what they already have. Being completely engulfed by the story and setting of a game whilst you play as a character either pre-made or customised is just the best feature about a game, and it’s the reason I play them.
If you had to choose, what would you rather have; multiplayer only games, or single player games?