Are we having too many Free2Play and Multiplayer-Only titles these days?

[ToxicOffender]

I start with my own opinion about Free2Play and Multiplayer-Only titles:

First of all, those titles don´t really have any "value" to them, at least not in the way of classic video-games you could still play in 3023 (with emulators probably), since their servers just tend to be shut-down as soon as devs/publishers think it´s time for it, which means the titles will be DEAD, for once and for all, vanishing from the depths of the WWW as if they never existed.

Next problem...and that one already starts to really shine...is there being already too many of those titles, so what´s happening?

More and more titles are being more or less "already dead on their day of release", with probably just having one or two years maximum till servers are finally shut-down, so why even bother playing, let alone paying money for them?

If you look at STEAM, it´s a real drama how many F2P or multiplayer-only titles are there and already dying or dead already while i remember there was this one article about some title a few months ago, still having a fanbase of thousands of players, but devs/publishers decided to quit them. So prior 2 month until shutting down its servers, they still kept selling expensive "packages" for the game, which is another thing being so typical for todays rather ugly market of "trying to make as much money as possible and then abandoning the playerbase while moving on to the next money-cow."

Not really sure if this is what gamers really want, as it looks like to me, the industry is rather "forcing" titles upon gamers rather than giving gamers what they´re asking for....or was anyone asking for DIABLO IMMORTAL or another dozen of PUBG-Clones?

So, since they all still think they can make great money with Battle-Royale-Multiplayer-Only-Games, they still kinda flood the market with this genre while at the same time most of them devs/publishers are already drowning...if not drowned already.

Seems to be the classic, slightly different version of :
too many cooks spoil the broth

 

[Brian Boru]

Welcome to the forum

Here's an English version of your link:
too many cooks spoil the broth

industry is rather "forcing" titles upon gamers rather than giving gamers what they´re asking for

I think that applies to all entertainment—and some other—industries. There are a couple of thousand books published every day, very few of them asked for by readers. I'm not so familiar with the others—music, movies, art etc—but I expect the majority of output is unsolicited too.

I fully agree with your view on the cynical opportunism which is prevalent in many larger companies, but ultimately it's the market which decides what gets made. If marketing is able to manipulate and deceive people substantially, as it does in many industries, then that's how its going to go until that mythical golden era of the educated consumer dawns.

 

[Colif]

Some one has a good idea and makes money off it, there are always 1000's of echoes of people trying to do the same thing. Right now every 1st person shooter that isn't Fortnite wants to be as popular so they all push out clones.

The naked greed is on full display

Free2play used to be a good business model for old games that were starting to die. People want to push out games based on a model that only works if you already have an established player base. So they fail... its just like NFT and Multiverse. Its all a pie in the sky dream where you get rich selling nothing of value to other people.

Educated consumer? lol. They don't even teach people what sites to trust on the internet. Or how to use Google... although search engines just turning into promotion engines. They not there to show you answers, but to sell you stuff. Last thing big business wants is an educated consumer. How you going to sell them anything then? Its why kids these days have heads filled with rubbish that won't help them in the future. Need to kill knowledge as facts are dangerous.

 

[Barukanen]

I often feel like Free to Play games quality isn't quite as good (or often as good) as the games with a cost. I honestly don't mind if big title games took the approach as being free to play but charge you for expansions or DLC.

What I do have an issue with, is games being split into halves. You pay for a single player campaign which is usually a small percentage of their game and the multiplayer is free littered with micro-transactions so you look like a power ranger running around. (them transactions take away from the aesthetic and immersive experience of the game for me). My point is that, youre paying full price for a small percentage of game, but it's not really where they're making their money from and it usually has the least amount of care and thought put into it. (Call of Duty I'm looking at you! Plus I hear Halo Infinite is the same now). An as this process moves forward, people don't tend to pay for the single player game because the longevity fun is in the multiplayer experience.

I think the growing trend of multiplayer gameplay stems from the boom of Battlegrounds and their hype/attraction for the current generation. Older generations prefer story and lore to being told to **** your Mum by a 13 year old eating Twinkies in a basement...

I wish single player games got more focus and attention but they don't have the financial impact like multiplayer sadly.

 

[Pifanjr]

I disagree that entertainment that is only available for a limited time has no value, but I do agree there are too many free-to-play games. Then again, there's also too many paid games, as evidenced by the sheer number of games being created, a lot of which will never even be seen by 99,9% of gamers.

At least with most free-to-play games the programmers still get paid I suppose.

 

[mjs warlord]

Are we having too many Free2Play and Multiplayer-Only titles these days?

The answer to your question is yes.
A lot of games that you used to buy outright can now be got free2play but of course their is a catch , compare the origonal version of a game to the version that is now free , most of the content will be missing.

Take for example microsoft flight simulator when it came out 20 years ago it was £50 at a time when most games were half that price , the free version now gives you a few token aircraft and ofc microsoft will get their money off you via micro payments.

So called free multiplay are are cash cow because you will get to a level where you are constantly being beaten by AI or players who have spent money so you have to decide on weather to spend money just like everyone else or dump the game.

Many years ago pc gamer magazine spoke to some companies about this and some openly admitted if only 3% of the worlds games players used micro payments they would make a profit.

 

[Colif]

Age of Conan went free 2 play and the main restrictions were the expansion pack areas were out of bounds to the f2p players. Shame as that was where the end game was. Didn't effect me as I had a subscription from launch.

I don't buy enough games to notice too many multi player only games but I am sure it would annoy me... almost as much as online only single player games which make no sense to me. And just mean games die when servers are gone. Great for devs as you have to buy something new. Shame quality of games is getting worse and they camoflage it by re making the games worse than the originals. One way to hide how untalented you are.

 

[ZedClampet]

Yeah, this has bothered me for ages, but even though lot of these multiplayer only games are super cheap to make as opposed to a large single-player game. I've still seen a bunch of devs go down in flames trying to hit it big with them. But it's also easier to make these games as, IMO, they require less creativity (or so it seems by looking at them).

But people like the moon shot. If you hit it big with a multiplayer game you can be rolling in the money for years. And the truth is there are a bunch of AAA single-player games that bomb too.

I disagree that entertainment that is only available for a limited time has no value, but I do agree there are too many free-to-play games. Then again, there's also too many paid games, as evidenced by the sheer number of games being created, a lot of which will never even be seen by 99,9% of gamers.

At least with most free-to-play games the programmers still get paid I suppose.

The sheer number of games in general makes any sort of game development risky. I was doing a deep dive in Steam a few months ago and found a game that was like an updated twist on Medieval Total War, complete with battles featuring thousands, a nice looking campaign map, etc. Unbelievably, the whole thing was made by a single person. And it didn't have any user reviews. Not a single one. It literally upset me quite a bit. I just pictured this poor guy toiling away for years on this game and no one even saw it, much less bought it. So depressing. Just to add salt to the wound, I didn't buy it, and now I can't find it again.

Here's a similar situation, though. This one I actually just found while looking for the above game. At least it has 5 user reviews. I've seen a lot of decent looking games with less. And it only costs $4.99.

The Great Fantasy Struggle on Steam

TGFS is an indie grand strategy game set in a fantasy world, engrossed in an unrelenting conflict between light and darkness.

store.steampowered.com

 

[mjs warlord]

i have only ever bought in game items on 2 occassions , on tanki x and world of battles , i spent money on both because i thought they were both worth it , after about 1 year both decided to shut servers down so i wont be making the mistake a 3rd time

 

[ZedClampet]

i have only ever bought in game items on 2 occassions , on tanki x and world of battles , i spent money on both because i thought they were both worth it , after about 1 year both decided to shut servers down so i wont be making the mistake a 3rd time

Yeah, it's not a good idea to get attached to multiplayer games like I did with World's Adrift. I liked that game so much I've actually thought about sending an inquiry to the developer to see if I could buy it from them.

 

[mjs warlord]

Hey Zed i think i found something of interest to you , on steam their is worlds adrift island creator , its free , dont know if its the same thing your talking about , go check it out and listen to what the dev says on the third video

 

[ZedClampet]

Hey Zed i think i found something of interest to you , on steam their is worlds adrift island creator , its free , dont know if its the same thing your talking about , go check it out and listen to what the dev says on the third video

I know about the island creator, but I haven't watched the videos. Thanks, I'll check them out.

 

[mainer]

I've never had any interest in F2P and/or multiplayer only games, you guys probably know my gaming habits well enough by now to know that I only play single player games. So I do think there are too many of those types of games being released, as I swear every week there's a new F2P, Battle Royal, or similar types of games being released.

But as long as a few of them remain profitable, there will be other developers trying to do the same thing. I don't follow any of those games, but isn't the profit usually tied to micro transactions within the game, and maybe even tied to the players progression?

So I tend to completely ignore them. As long as there are a few new single player focused games released every year, I'm happy (it's not like I'm hurting for SP games to play anyway), though it would be nice if a few of those F2P game developers switched their focus to making in-depth SP games, that would be awesome news.

 

[ToxicOffender]

I think that applies to all entertainment—and some other—industries. There are a couple of thousand books published every day, very few of them asked for by readers.

Now imagine half of all the book-writers/authors decide for the cheapest, most profitable way of writing and selling books and along with that, they focus more and more on how to make as much money as possible rather than being creative and original while actually writing their books with love and heart.

The "book-industry" would probably end up trying to write the same kind of "Bestsellers", based on the same storylines and authors who tend to make those "Bestsellers". I guess the "book-industry" will then flood us with Stephen-King-Style books and stories, while more and more people tend to really having enough of "Stephen-King-Crap"...and that is like what´s happening with the gaming-industry these days.

So the gaming industry is actually forcing us more and more into playing and doing certain things we not just "haven´t asked for" but most people never really wanted (or probably having enough of already!)

A probably good example for my point are those classic-cult-movie franchises!
So now we are getting FRIDAY THE 13TH, PREDATOR, THE EVIL DEAD, THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE and now KILLER CLOWNS FROM OUTER SPACE served as ASYMMETRICAL-MULTIPLAYER-ONLY games, all based on DEAD BY DAYLIGHT.

Now please don´t tell me there wouldn´t have been any chance in making those games a great single-player experience, even when it would be just HITMAN-Style replayable achievement-mission-objectives (like they basically added to FRIDAY THE 13TH with people really loving it!).

So i guess the next "flood" is already happening, with the industry having realized they really did enough BATTLE-ROYALE multiplayer-only games, so now it has to be ASYMMETRICAL-MULTIPLAYER games, while the industry doesn´t care much if gamers (...and especially those die-hard-fans of the franchises!) would prefer a classic single-player experience!

But hey...they could as well make both of course, giving that asymmetrical-multiplayer-only crap along with a good single-player part, but then again it has to be "as cheap as possible", so forget about that part again, coz why putting time, effort and money into a single-player part, when those gamer-sheeps anyway are just buying what we are selling them!

I sometimes ask myself...why do they even bother with making video-games after all, if they´re so focused on making so much money? Some publishers would probably be better off selling drugs instead.

 

[Pifanjr]

I sometimes ask myself...why do they even bother with making video-games after all, if they´re so focused on making so much money? Some publishers would probably be better off selling drugs instead.

Video games are pretty close to drugs, especially the (mobile) ones specifically designed to trigger certain emotions to make people spend their money on it. And the people at the top still get to exploit the people doing the actual work, just like regular drug lords!

 

[Barukanen]

Video games are pretty close to drugs, especially the (mobile) ones specifically designed to trigger certain emotions to make people spend their money on it. And the people at the top still get to exploit the people doing the actual work, just like regular drug lords!

Clearly that's morally wrong, but do you not think that should be governed by someone at this rate?

 

[Brian Boru]

imagine half of all the book-writers/authors decide for the cheapest, most profitable way of writing and selling books and along with that, they focus more and more on how to make as much money as possible

Sadly, no imagination required, that's exactly what's happening with probably well over half of authors—certainly well over half the output anyway. Mostly non-fiction rip-offs of existing work, spammy promos of affiliate products, or just poorly constructed and slapped together original work.

There's little point in upsetting yourself though, it's a windmill to tilt against There are also far too many variations of tomato sauce and shirts.

do you not think that should be governed by someone at this rate?

China has tried going that route, but I haven't seen anything on how it's going and what effect it's having.

 

[Frindis]

A good thing about having many titles to choose from is that you have many titles to choose from. It makes me better at distinguishing between bad and good games, not to mention it is nice to have some competition against the AAA companies. It does make it harder to just play one single game at a time though.

 

[Alm]

I think free-to-play games are also highly successful because the huge younger audience can't afford many full price games and can pester their parents for cosmetic microtransaction money rather than £60 for a decent singleplayer experience.

 

[Pifanjr]

Clearly that's morally wrong, but do you not think that should be governed by someone at this rate?

Crunch culture should definitely be governed, as well as the outrageous salaries for the top executives. As for how the games themselves are made, there's some stuff that can and should be done, like banning gambling elements. I would also like to see a ban on currency that can only be (reasonably) gotten with real life money, as creating an extra layer of obfuscation on the actual worth of your items is a very manipulative tactic as well.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

As a single-player-only gamer, I agree there are too many multiplayer-only games out there. As for F2P, I have mixed opinions on that. If they're done right, I don't have a problem with them, and even welcome them. Especially if they have a single player mode. Genshin Impact is a great example of the right way to do F2P. You could start a single player campaign in that game and play forever and have a lot of fun without ever paying a dime. But then they rake in the money from the people who do want to pay for stuff.

 

[ToxicOffender]

Video games are pretty close to drugs, especially the (mobile) ones specifically designed to trigger certain emotions to make people spend their money on it. And the people at the top still get to exploit the people doing the actual work, just like regular drug lords!

THAT of course hits the nail too! On the other hand...not everyone falls so easily victim to every kind of drug (hard or easy) out there and i am not sure what the fact of thousands of HEAVY- DIABLO-IMMORTAL-ADDICTS (lol) is probably saying about the mental state of todays gaming society in general, but i just have to take a peek at how hate is easily spreading, let alone death-threats to devs, review-bombings and stuff like that...and i am afraid it doesn´t look too good at all with "Gamers" these days.

A good thing about having many titles to choose from is that you have many titles to choose from. It makes me better at distinguishing between bad and good games, not to mention it is nice to have some competition against the AAA companies. It does make it harder to just play one single game at a time though.

I am totally with you on that part, but then again it happens on a monthly basis for me to realize..."Oh my! There is another gem flying below the radar for almost a year now!" meaning there are almost too many good or even better to downright "GREAT!" games not getting the treatment they really deserve and quickly end up in oblivion...

...like it happened to "AMONG US", a multiplayer-only (YUCK!) title that (happily) wasn´t succeeding at all, but thanks to some twitch-streamer who decided to stream it one year after its initial release, it (sadly) went to a million-seller overnight, otherwise that title would have ended up as those many multiplayer-only titles these days, showing "dead already" within the user-reviews, for the case there still are users left who are still playing the game and therefor writing those reviews of course.

I think free-to-play games are also highly successful because the huge younger audience can't afford many full price games and can pester their parents for cosmetic microtransaction money rather than £60 for a decent singleplayer experience.

...and then end up spending a total of 400 bucks over a few months. I´d say those are exactly those kind of "drug-victims" i was talking about before!

the outrageous salaries for the top executives

Don´t even remind me, coz this reminds me of a general issue this world is having these days without really realizing it and top-executives are just the tip of the iceberg!

I mean...if some middle-class actor is able to buy a whole football-league with his money he got from his dead-boring to downright awfully stupid movies, then something in this world seems to be terribly wrong here.

As a single-player-only gamer,

Always happy to meet gamers like i am, but then again our kind of single-player-gamers is probably bigger than we expected and chances are high that, like i already mentioned, the industry is more on forcing us to play multiplayer-only-games rather than the majority of gamers really asked for that.

So then there are those kind of "single-player-gamers" who tend to be so easily "addicted" and then they end up playing DIABLO IMMORTAL even that they were ranting about it. So then again the whole thing looks like "Multiplayer-Only Games are da ****! And everyone luvs and plays Multiplayer-Only Games!" when it´s actually a more or less a "forced fake reality" by the gaming-industry in order to make more money the easier way.

 

[WoodenSaucer]

Always happy to meet gamers like i am, but then again our kind of single-player-gamers is probably bigger than we expected and chances are high that, like i already mentioned, the industry is more on forcing us to play multiplayer-only-games rather than the majority of gamers really asked for that.

So then there are those kind of "single-player-gamers" who tend to be so easily "addicted" and then they end up playing DIABLO IMMORTAL even that they were ranting about it. So then again the whole thing looks like "Multiplayer-Only Games are da ****! And everyone luvs and plays Multiplayer-Only Games!" when it´s actually a more or less a "forced fake reality" by the gaming-industry in order to make more money the easier way.

If you stick around here, you'll find out that a lot of the members here are older. I'm 50, and I'm young here. But when you're around older gamers, you're more likely to be in the company of more people who appreciate a good single player game.

 

[Pifanjr]

...and then end up spending a total of 400 bucks over a few months. I´d say those are exactly those kind of "drug-victims" i was talking about before!

I do think there should be more regulation on how micro-transactions are pushed onto kids. A lot of countries already have legislation and/or self-regulatory codes of conduct on advertisements aimed at children, but those don't extend to video games. There have been talks for a while about regulating micro-transactions in video games, but as far as I'm aware there isn't a country that has made any laws about them besides some of them banning loot crates.

Always happy to meet gamers like i am, but then again our kind of single-player-gamers is probably bigger than we expected and chances are high that, like i already mentioned, the industry is more on forcing us to play multiplayer-only-games rather than the majority of gamers really asked for that.

What do you mean with "forcing us to play multiplayer-only-games"? Force how?

 

[ToxicOffender]

If you stick around here, you'll find out that a lot of the members here are older. I'm 50, and I'm young here. But when you're around older gamers, you're more likely to be in the company of more people who appreciate a good single player game.

47 here!

I already got that idea this place is somehow different in a positive way! The last forum i visited was the Gamespot-Forums and that was like infantile toxic-toddler-hell with lots of "fanboy-trash-talk" and of course constant "provocations" from console-players towards pc-gamers and reverse.

Now not that i´d have a problem with toxic people since i can pretty much turn into a toxic a-bomb myself, but it just makes no sense arguing with those teenies coz first of all...they take everything too damn serious all the time, ending up butthurt way too easily but worst thing of all...they go easily toxic themself but don´t even realize it, while in fact calling others "toxic" to begin with, so then the whole thing is even worse with "Hiveminds" in certain forums/communites, where it´s alredy enough to just have a different opinion and there are already "members" calling you a "Troll" for it.

What do you mean with "forcing us to play multiplayer-only-games"? Force how?

Like flooding us with multiplayer-only games and leaving us no other choices than either playing with other people or leaving it.

I would love so much to play PREDATOR, but they are forcing me to play it in groups with other people, let alone the fact the title being DEAD once too many base players start wandering off to another multiplayer-only game, as it´s actually happening all the time.

Just check STEAM for how many multiplayer-only games are "dead already". Even when i wold love multiplayer-games, there is no way i am gonna buy such a title when more and more user-reviews claim the title to be well...."dead already!".

So why are more and more multiplayer-only titles dying so fast? The answer in my opinion: There are just way too many of them by now.

But not that i´d be sad about multiplayer-only games dying so fast.

BTW do you guys remember how they made "Multiplayer-Games" back the days and always made it possible to play versus bots? Yeah i know, bots weren´t too smart but at least you could and still can play those games even they´re "dead" with good as no other players around.