This is unfortunately true.
You have games in your library you think, "Oh I remember that game. I wonder if anyone plays" and you check it and there are 10 servers, all empty. For these kinds of games to work well you need either a bunch of people playing or a small amount of people who play all the time so there is always someone to play with.
Once people get it in their mind that a game is dead, no one checks it and it becomes dead in itself.
I prefer Single-player games more anyways. There are just so few good Multiplayer games out there.
Yeah maybe multiplayer only.
I don't think anyone should make multiplayer only games, AAA or indie. When the community dies off you're left with a game that you can't play.
There are a fair few really good multiplayer indie games on Steam that are really struggling due to dwindling playercounts ([url=http://store.steampowered.com/app/244590/]Epigenesis[/url] for example, which is on a free weekend)
The issue is that unless the game is incredibly addictive and has some sort of long goal which feels worth it that the player game aim for from the very start, people start dropping off like flies after playing a few games and getting bored.
I know a few of the Epigenesis devs and see them a few times a year irl, they are a bunch of uni students and its their first game and they are really trying to make it work, so its sad to see the lack of interest.
One of my favourite games as a kid was UT99, despite only having dial-up internet at best and I never really played it online
Bots are an absolute must and if you do a good job, like UT99 for me, they'll support your 'multiplayer' game on their own.
However, do make your game coop multiplayer.
Coop is the best kind of multiplayer for indie games since you can just play with your friends here and there and have lots of fun.
[QUOTE=vexx21322;44704734]However, do make your game coop multiplayer.
Coop is the best kind of multiplayer for indie games since you can just play with your friends here and there and have lots of fun.[/QUOTE]COOP is best mode for 99% of games. We need more coop games.
[QUOTE=subenji99;44704667]One of my favourite games as a kid was UT99, despite only having dial-up internet at best and I never really played it online
Bots are an absolute must and if you do a good job, like UT99 for me, they'll support your 'multiplayer' game on their own.[/QUOTE]
I get that bots are probably not easy to make for most games, but it still bothers me when devs spend so much time making co-op exclusive modes and various other factors involving players versus AI, like Halo, and then make it so multiplayer is split-screen, system link, and/or online-only with not a hint of bots about. It's what helped me play games like Timesplitters for years.
Make a singleplayer game and give me coop within it.
This advice is very, very bad for indies working on mobile games. (Though for PC it's totally right).
Even "multiplayer" consisting of attacking randomly generated worlds with somebody else's screen name attached works wonders.
Here is a simplified muffin-graph™ of why this is a bad idea for mobile.
[t]http://i.cubeupload.com/GP7Vfi.png[/t]
[QUOTE=Super Muffin;44707361]This advice is very, very bad for indies working on mobile games. (Though for PC it's totally right).
Even "multiplayer" consisting of attacking randomly generated worlds with somebody else's screen name attached works wonders.
Here is a simplified muffin-graph™ of why this is a bad idea for mobile.
[t]http://i.cubeupload.com/GP7Vfi.png[/t][/QUOTE]
It actually doesn't really change much. Making a multiplayer-focused mobile game, or adding some multiplayer to a singleplayer-focused game, may add some longevity to it, but once players move onto other things it'll wither like any other. It's presumably even more fierce, even, because of all the copycat clones trying to cash in on the same demographic; if you make an indie game based around multiplayer and, hypothetically, another game is generally more popular, you're lucky if you even become a cult hit.
[QUOTE=Super Muffin;44707361]This advice is very, very bad for indies working on mobile games. (Though for PC it's totally right).
Even "multiplayer" consisting of attacking randomly generated worlds with somebody else's screen name attached works wonders.
Here is a simplified muffin-graph™ of why this is a bad idea for mobile.
[t]http://i.cubeupload.com/GP7Vfi.png[/t][/QUOTE]
The problem with Multiplayer games is that you have to detract other areas to make a multiplayer mode for your game. For example look at Spec Ops: The Line... If they put more resources into the multiplayer aspects, the story would have suffered because they would of had to dedicate more of the budget to the multiplayer aspect. Same goes for things like Homefront and otherwise.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44708418]The problem with Multiplayer games is that you have to detract other areas to make a multiplayer mode for your game. For example look at Spec Ops: The Line... If they put more resources into the multiplayer aspects, the story would have suffered because they would of had to dedicate more of the budget to the multiplayer aspect. Same goes for things like Homefront and otherwise.[/QUOTE]
Multiplayer doesn't detract from mobile titles if it's part of the core design, and all the successful mobile games with multiplayer focus on the player interaction since that's how you get revenue.
For AAA games or your standard PC/console indie game multiplayer is always the first thing you cut.
[QUOTE=RikohZX;44708400]It actually doesn't really change much. Making a multiplayer-focused mobile game, or adding some multiplayer to a singleplayer-focused game, may add some longevity to it, but once players move onto other things it'll wither like any other. It's presumably even more fierce, even, because of all the copycat clones trying to cash in on the same demographic; if you make an indie game based around multiplayer and, hypothetically, another game is generally more popular, you're lucky if you even become a cult hit.[/QUOTE]
The reason average revenue is higher per user is because the multiplayer keeps people playing. People drop mobile games once they get bored, which is why a-sync multiplayer with constant content updates keep people engaged.
Clash of Clans practically prints money for a reason. It very much makes a difference.
I would extend this advice to AAA companies as well. Not everyone likes multiplayer. Some of us still prefer SP, insist on it even(I'm in this category, fuck MP). Yet there's precious little coming out that's single player and even less of it is any good.
Ofcourse multiplayer games with limited re-playability won't do well and will lose players over time, that doesn't mean Indie's should only make singleplayer games from now on. Maybe the advice for indies should be that if they are going to make a multiplayer mode at least try to design something with re-playability and an extended lifetime in mind.
Don't get me wrong, Showdown Effect was a fun game with friends, but I didn't really find myself wanting to dump more hours in to unlock some weapons and characters to play the same few levels, and neither did anyone else I played with. On the other hand, Magicka was incredibly fun, right up until it crashed to desktop. Instead of fixing that game, they dumped a bunch of DLC on it and moved onto another title.
Nuclear Dawn, Breach, War of the Roses, Kingdom's Rise, Showdown Effect etc. Didn't fail online because they were multiplayer games, they failed because they didn't appeal to a large enough player-base willing to support them over time, and tried to get into a market they obviously didn't understand well enough. I think it's much easier to create a Coop experience as an Indie, there are so few of those on the market and anything is fun with friends.
War of the roses still averages a couple hundred players
Do have multiplayer, just don't make a multi-player only game.
Once it's dead, it's dead. You need a miracle to make a dead multiplayer game become alive when there are so many multiplayer games out there.
[editline]3rd May 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;44710078]War of the roses still averages a couple hundred players[/QUOTE]
Not an indie game, it was published by Paradox. Indie developer =/= indie game.
Also a couple of hundred really isn't that many for a game, especially not a multiplayer one.
Chivalry and Natural Selection 2 were pretty successful though.
[QUOTE=Handsome Matt;44711394]Indie developers can do what the fuck they want, that's the whole idea of being independent.. Some things will work some things won't. This guys didn't; so he's going to tell every indie developer to not even bother?[/QUOTE]
He did mention their were obviously exceptions. He is correct though quite frankly , Very few multi-player only indie games have flourished because they don't get the audience.
I don't suspect you can think of many that were developed by small indie developers and even larger indie devs required a following first to remain successful.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;44711352]Chivalry and Natural Selection 2 were pretty successful though.[/QUOTE]
Both are games that previously had an established fan base.
[QUOTE=Untouch;44703828]Yeah maybe multiplayer only.
I don't think anyone should make multiplayer only games, AAA or indie. When the community dies off you're left with a game that you can't play.[/QUOTE]
Not true if the game's good/popular enough. CS 1.6 still has over 30k players, many having moved on to CS:S (~20k) and CS:GO (~160k). TF2 has peaked ~63k players today, it having got more popular as time went on. Oh, and Dota 2? Over 670k players today, I doubt that's going anywhere soon.
It's true for many cases though - multiplayer games tend to die down and out after a few months.
[QUOTE=Handsome Matt;44711394]Indie developers can do what the fuck they want, that's the whole idea of being independent.. Some things will work some things won't. This guys didn't; so he's going to tell every indie developer to not even bother?[/QUOTE]
It's sad but when you look at what happens on greenlight where some games no matter how good they are will never see the light and games that actually make it and are good at single and multiplayer (like Zero Gear) and see them slowly fade away in a few months it almost makes the article sound optimistic.
If you look at games such as King Arthur's Gold this is way too true. They should have worked more on the single player.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44708418]The problem with Multiplayer games is that you have to detract other areas to make a multiplayer mode for your game. For example look at Spec Ops: The Line... If they put more resources into the multiplayer aspects, the story would have suffered because they would of had to dedicate more of the budget to the multiplayer aspect. Same goes for things like Homefront and otherwise.[/QUOTE]
I think Homefront's multiplayer was alright, though. A bit unbalanced (You learn to [I]fear[/I] the Scout heli), but is still fun. The story, however, could've used another 6 months of development. I mean, 10 missions and we only spent two doing actual guerrilla stuff? Come on...
[QUOTE=Untouch;44703828]Yeah maybe multiplayer only.
I don't think anyone should make multiplayer only games, AAA or indie. When the community dies off you're left with a game that you can't play.[/QUOTE]
That's my beef with titanfall. I really want to play it but not enough to drop $60 on it but by the time it gets to a price where I am willing to buy it, I'll have missed out on playing the game at its apex and it'll be a game I'll never get to really experience
What are some multiplayer indie games that were released some time ago and are still alive (not on life support with 100 players, alive) nowadays? I can't think of any.
I get seriously pissed off when I see an indie game/mod that looks really good, then I find out it's multiplayer only. Remember NeoTokyo?
[QUOTE=Untouch;44703828]Yeah maybe multiplayer only.
I don't think anyone should make multiplayer only games, AAA or indie. When the community dies off you're left with a game that you can't play.[/QUOTE]
CoD games would have been better if they were MP only.
Just dropping the SP altogether and making MP as good as they can...
BUT NOOOOOO. Lets make an awful game!
This is why I laugh at game companies insisting you "buy" an online pass if you buy it used.
If you're buying it used, theres almost a 100% chance the multiplayer is dead.
[QUOTE=TheCombine;44717692]What are some multiplayer indie games that were released some time ago and are still alive (not on life support with 100 players, alive) nowadays? I can't think of any.
I get seriously pissed off when I see an indie game/mod that looks really good, then I find out it's multiplayer only. Remember NeoTokyo?[/QUOTE]
Killing Floor?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
