• Moonguide ( Moonguide@lemmy.ml ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 years ago

      Honestly, I prefer this, as long as the single player option is unaffected by the multiplayer component’s performance, and the resources allotted to the SP game don’t suffer because of the MP.

          • Sure, and game development in general takes longer than it did 20 years ago, but allocating a proportional amount of resources is all you need. If it’s a hit, it’s a hit. If you want to patch it up a bit to fix some glaring flaws, go ahead. Expecting it to maintain tens of thousands of simultaneous players is going to end up with the dev putting lots of resources into something unlikely to be the next big thing.

        • Moonguide ( Moonguide@lemmy.ml ) 
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 years ago

          True, but that was before mtx became the name of the game. Nowadays when a game has a multiplayer component with no bells and whistles and just works, it’s an outlier.

          • And now those games just get shut down with no recourse. Eventually, those companies will realize that they’re better off making a multiplayer game that doesn’t get 5 years worth of updates to chase after bazillions of dollars that never materialize.

        • Tack Call of Duty Zombies into that list too, but Moonguide has a point. CoD: BlOps 3 was the last really good zombies experience and that was just as they were starting to turn it into an MTx nightmare.

    • aperson ( aperson@beehaw.org ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 years ago

      I liked how FEAR did it back in the day. The multiplayer was a separate game you could download for free and play. Then, if you liked the game, you could pay for the single player.