So why do developers think that multi-player is so important

[Gamerforlife]

A lot of developers seem to really and truly believe that a game cannot succeed today without online multi-player. Keijie Inafune even said as much in an interview about Dead Rising 2, which I thought was such an ignorant statement for a man of his position to make.

Why is this? Were does this myth that multi-player is so important come from? Batman Arkham Asylum came out this year. It was not just a critical hit, but it sold tons of copies. No multi-player mode. Bioshock was another huge success when it came out, critically and financially. Again, no multi-player mode. How about Dragon Age, another big hit this year. No multi-player mode. Then there's also Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. Obviously a game can succeed on its single player alone. So who is feeding game developers this lie that they MUST have multi-player in EVERYTHING? Are they somehow completely oblivious to the succesful games that don't have multi-player?

It's like this obsession with quick time events in games today, they are mostly tacky and gimmicky because most games that have them today clearly do not need them, but just add them because it seems trendy to do so.

[8-bit Legend]

I think that to appeal to the general population, multiplayer is included. Many people will go to their local gamestop, pick up a game such as Bioshock, and put it down because it said one player on the back. Though these may be people who do not know much about video games, these are most people. An example of this is how the Call of Duty games that did not include mulitplayer can always be found in the used games section, while multiplayer ones such as 2 and 3 are still being bought and played online. I do agree that for many games multiplayer is just a superfluous addition to sell more copies.

[the7k]

Take a look at Modern Warfare 2. A mediocre single-player, but a stellar multi-player. As a result, there are very few second-hand copies floating around.

Meanwhile, Batman: Arkham Asylum had many used copies in circulation just a couple of weeks after release.

This is why multiplayer is important - because most people just sell a single-player game once they are done with it. If a multiplayer game is good enough, you'll never be done with it.

[Bodmin]

cause games going at 60-65 bucks a pop, costumers want bang for there buck

[MrPopo]

Unfortunately the realm of video games is not just filled with legions of misanthrops like it used to be. Now it's all about interacting with others. I think there is also an increased prevalence of trading in finished games. Back in the day you had your Funco Land and other stores, but trading in wasn't nearly as huge as it is now. Back in the day you'd beat Super Metroid, put it on the shelf, then bring it out sometime later. Now you beat the game once and give it back to the store.

cause games going at 60-65 bucks a pop, costumers want bang for there buck

I remember playing $70-80 for new single player SNES games and never feeling ripped off (and that's not even figuring out the inflation from the mid-90's to now).

[jfe2]

I'm more of a fan of local multi-player that lets you play through campaigns cooperatively. Old school games like Turtles in Time and Joe and Mac were so fun to me as a kid because I could play through the campaign with my little sister or my friends, and being in the same room allowed for some really cool moments that get lost over online play sometimes.

A lot of the newer games don't really give me that same feeling of fun. The closest thing I've gotten to that feeling was playing through Gears of War 2's campaign over XBLA with my friend. When multi-player is done well, like in GOW2's case, I'm happy that it's there. But in most cases, such as Batman: Arkham Asylum, I'm happy that it wasn't just tacked on.

[Lokkenjawnz]

Like other people have said, multiplayer extends playtime almost infinitely. What I don't understand is why there isn't more co-op. Co-op can make a bad game decent, and a great game amazing; there's just something way more satisfying about beating a game with a friend. First person shooters especially should always have co-op I think, because the only thing that really stops them from having it is the story, and honestly I can deal with a simpler story if it means some epic co-op action. That's one of the big reasons why I'm not so gung-ho about most, if not all, recent FPSes, is the lack of co-op in the majority of them.

[Dakinggamer87]

I'm more of a fan of local multi-player that lets you play through campaigns cooperatively. Old school games like Turtles in Time and Joe and Mac were so fun to me as a kid because I could play through the campaign with my little sister or my friends, and being in the same room allowed for some really cool moments that get lost over online play sometimes.

A lot of the newer games don't really give me that same feeling of fun. The closest thing I've gotten to that feeling was playing through Gears of War 2's campaign over XBLA with my friend. When multi-player is done well, like in GOW2's case, I'm happy that it's there. But in most cases, such as Batman: Arkham Asylum, I'm happy that it wasn't just tacked on.

Yeah, I basically feel the same way!!

[jfrost]

I'm just sad that multiplayer nowadays is almost exclusively online. Local is way more fun.

[the7k]

I seem to remember a Game Informer poll, and offline co-op actually did get a decent amount of support from those that voted. Hopefully, big wigs will take notice.

Also, about the topic title: So why do developers think that multi-player is so important. There's something wrong with that - many times, developers don't think that it is so important. It's the publishers who think it is. And, from a publisher's position, it is. A strong multiplayer component will keep the game away from the used section, which will keep profits coming to the company. This is all that most publishers care about.