Multiplayer-Only Games Over-Crowding The Gaming Industry?

Each year, there are tons and tons of game announcements and reveals. But there are not quite as many as when e3 rolls around, which is just getting started at the time of this wrtiting. For years now, it seems about half the reveals are multiplayer-only games, and most of them are first-person-shooters, and if not those, then third-person-shooters.

There are literally like 3-5 of these types of games to every one single-player game. I remember when e3 was something exciting, as it gave gamers something to look forward to. Not so much anymore. We might get like 2-5 interesting single-player games now. Though I suppose if you are into the countless multiplayer games, then things are more amazing in gaming than ever.

But let’s be honest. All these games are designed to play forever, until servers inevitably shut down, which depending on the success of the game, could take over a decade. So it baffles me that they could make so many of these games. If players are being loyal to one or two games, how can there ever be a fanbase large enough to sustain 90% of these endlessly released games, especially when so many of them constantly add on to their games to hold player interest?

And I imagine if a player wants to become really good, they are sticking to one game, so that they can eventually dominate most matches.

Online multiplayer has become such a priority, that games that are thoughtful enough to give us a single player are usually, and sometimes weak little game, but we still have to pay full price, mainly to help the company sustain it’s multiplayer software.

What’s even more baffling, is local multiplayer, aside from Nintendo games, has become practically non-existent in most games. Why can I play every game in the world online if I pay a subscription fee, but I can’t play with a friend in my own living room? Obviously, the games that are solely huge battle arenas and the like, local multiplayer is not possible or necessary, but smaller-scaled games that can allow 2-4 players to play don’t have a local multiplayer option.

And yes, I did answer my own question. It is probably due to the fact that they want you to pay for PlayStation Plus and XboxGold or whatever it’s called.

I just watched Ubisoft’s presentation, and it was pretty much four multiplayer games, 2 single player games, and a game that teaches you guitar, which I guess can be considered  single player.

Happy e3 to you online shooter fans. For a pre-event I also watch contained a large amount of games, more than half of them multiplayer shooters, so you’ve got your great selection of picks, even though you’re probably going to stick to what you’ve been playing the past five years anyway…

Us single players will be treated to maybe 10 AAA single player games and a thousand lame indie titles. Woohoo!