Saber Interactive does not have a good track record of making popular MP games. Halo Online was cancelled and Quake Champions was a flop which could be one reason why Sony declined their offer.
[WCCFTech] Saber Interactive Approached Sony About Making the Multiplayer Component of Days Gone
- Thread starter Aokiji
- Start date
Ever thought about all the work that is put in a multiplayer mode, also could be put in making the SP better? So no, a MP does not necessarily add value.
A coop mode could be pretty fun in this world tbh.
More so than whatever the fuck last of us' multiplayer was. Yuck. That's fine if you enjoy it but it doesn't even start to scratch the hitch of a coop oriented survival horror.
But really i just want Outbreak to make a return ...
More so than whatever the fuck last of us' multiplayer was. Yuck. That's fine if you enjoy it but it doesn't even start to scratch the hitch of a coop oriented survival horror.
But really i just want Outbreak to make a return ...
There're whole threads full of people saying the same thing about God of war, Spider-Man, Horizon, etc. and in the end all of them were proven wrong.
This will be nothing idfferent. Of course i'm not saying this game will get 90+ Scores but it will sell really good and many, many users won't understand why.
ERA is quite shit in gauging the interest of the masses.
Almost nobody here thought that Wildlands would be this extremely successful. The same with the Devision and Rainbow Six.
I'm really looking forward to all the crow that's going to be served.
Nobody cares about the masses. Im voicing my opinion. I(and I'm sure there are others) could be interested in a MP mode for this game that hasn't shown alot to be excited for. This forum delves too deep into pseudo games industry analysis and not enough about genuine conversation regarding what different voices within this hobby are interested in. It's ok to have different interests and to be enticed by different aspects. I don't care what ERA thinks. This isn't a right or wrong kind of thing. With all due respect.
Glad they are sticking to single player, no need for a tacked on multiplayer when they had no plans for it.
And Sony continues to drop the ball on multiplayer this gen. I hope MS has a knockout MP game next gen and it slaps some sense into Sony
I have to laugh about the argument this MP mode wouldn't be tacked on. This would be the definition of tacked on. An outside developer comes wants to come in well after development has started on a solely single player game to add in a multiplayer element that might not even be based on the original game? Yeah that is about as "tacked on" as you can get for an MP game.
Let the developers decide when its right to try out MP with this IP, if ever.
Let the developers decide when its right to try out MP with this IP, if ever.
Wait what? Sony is fucking knocking it out of the park this whole gen long. They showed that people still desire good cinematic singleplayer games. Leave multiplayer/co-op to the multiplats en focus on your strong points.
They did both well last gen. Where are my Warhawks, Resistance Co Op, KZ 2 like experiences? It's ok to have a lil variety from the first party. This forum seems to disagree tho...
Current experiences are doing a lot better though. Also games like CoD and BF and FIFA will always do better. These are just to big to compete with on the long run.
Some people's antagonism toward multiplayer is weird.
"I like single-player!" So do I. Bloodborne has multi-player, in-and-out, and I loved it. I spent hours and hours helping people in Chalice Dungeons and hours and hours on the single-player. I played horde modes in Uncharted 4/Lost Legacy while enjoying a couple great single-player campaigns. Going back to the PS1/PS2, I played tons of single-player on Twisted Metal 2 and Black but also played tons of multi-player. Multi-player doesn't mean your single-player is guaranteed to suck.
"I like single-player!" So do I. Bloodborne has multi-player, in-and-out, and I loved it. I spent hours and hours helping people in Chalice Dungeons and hours and hours on the single-player. I played horde modes in Uncharted 4/Lost Legacy while enjoying a couple great single-player campaigns. Going back to the PS1/PS2, I played tons of single-player on Twisted Metal 2 and Black but also played tons of multi-player. Multi-player doesn't mean your single-player is guaranteed to suck.
I'd argue that passing the controller to your buddy when you can't make it to the checkpoint is the purest form of co-op, but then I was born in '76.
Resistance 3 was one of the best fps campaigns I ever played. Great pacing and story from start to finish.
I'd be fine with MP if the developers wanted to do it. This solution seems like it's ripe for all kinds of problems and just seems like a weird idea all around.
I see it as a revolt. There has always been a backlash on forums to have $60 multiplayer only games yet full support for a single player game that could last less than 20 hours to complete. As multiplayer gets more popular the revolt gains traction for more single player games. Sony is now seen as a saviour to single player titles and they will keep that going as long as they can. It also helps they get the most support from third party who will fill that void.
Exactly, the mindset of "leave the multiplayer games to 3rd party devs" is ridiculous considering the games their 1st party studios were able to deliver last gen
Wanting exclusive multiplayer experiences shouldn't be shunned. Also, having all of your 1st party studios create 3rd person cinematic single player games is getting tiring as well.
I really wish Sony would remaster it. It had such a great atomsphere and art style that it would look stunning on PS4 with 1080p/4K and 60 FPS.
Not to mention the gameplay being awesome.
Devs should always make the game they've always wanted to make wether single player or multiplayer.
With that said, I think a multiplayer open world game separate from the single player game ofcourse in the Days Gone Universe would be amazing as long as it doesn't take away from the single player game and it has the proper time and money put into it.
- You get dropped on this map with other players filled with massive hordes of Freakers.
- the Players Job is the find and save NPC's, find supplies and equipment to build outpost/safe zones.
- you're constantly hounded by the hordes and rival factions
- live Dailey events, missions, goals, etc along with weeklies and monthlies.
- PVP could be different faction you decided to join in the beginning only to be fought out in certain zones where you can gain the best items, equipment, money, etc if you win but also lose out on some of your stuff is you lose.
- Faction leader boards
- I think there's potential there
With that said, I think a multiplayer open world game separate from the single player game ofcourse in the Days Gone Universe would be amazing as long as it doesn't take away from the single player game and it has the proper time and money put into it.
- You get dropped on this map with other players filled with massive hordes of Freakers.
- the Players Job is the find and save NPC's, find supplies and equipment to build outpost/safe zones.
- you're constantly hounded by the hordes and rival factions
- live Dailey events, missions, goals, etc along with weeklies and monthlies.
- PVP could be different faction you decided to join in the beginning only to be fought out in certain zones where you can gain the best items, equipment, money, etc if you win but also lose out on some of your stuff is you lose.
- Faction leader boards
- I think there's potential there
I had no idea studio's did that. I figured it was Sony as the producer that approached them. This is an interesting tidbit but I'm happy they're focusing on the SP.
Another one is sanzaru games approaching Sony to make new Sly Cooper game, If I'm not mistaken
Resistance 3 remake would be fantastic especially with VR and aim gun support !
It means that, if Sony wants the same quality across both SP and MP and for it not to risk (yes, risk) feeling disjointed like two distinct games, there has to be a constant back and forth between Bend and Saber, which is (whether you wish to admit it or not) a massive disruptor at what is likely to be a crucial time in the development process. It's a distraction for a studio just trying to do their job and get their artistic vision across. Did you consider that Sony, might not want "two separate entities" for Days Gone? They want a cohesive package that can be quality controlled at the desired location rather than two?
Metacritic, again, like "elitism" has nothing to do with this. Adding MP to Days Gone simply does not make sense for who the game is made by, and what the project has been from the start. Saying its "genre" means it make sense doesn't hold if its doesn't fit for the game itself. I've heard very few actual suggestions for what the MP could be like that would make sense next to what the pillars of gameplay are for Days Gone, which is telling. If Bend wants to add some kind of unique MP after the fact, then let them. It won't mean that anyone was right or wrong, but you need to stop trying to convince people that Sony and Bend were wrong for turning down an iffy offer that absolutely would disrupt the production of their game.
Yikes, at you implying that single player games with the right attention and polish are not "complete packages". Sony chose to focus on attempting quality over quantity. Foreign concept to some. It's not difficult to understand how some people are happier knowing that a project doesn't have shoehorned excess for the sake of "added value" that isn't even guaranteed to work well. You have absolutely no idea how adding multiplayer would have impacted the production of the game, given that we know nothing of where Bend were at with the game when this Saber Interactive guy approached them in regards to world and gameplay systems, meaning that they would have to drop what they're doing, surrender their WIP engine and assets to Saber and have a back and forth meetings when it would be smarter to let Bend focus on finishing their own game with their own set of goals.
Why are people happy that it doesn't include a multiplayer mode from an outside studio?
At best it might be something interesting and it's not it would have raised the price of the game.
Responses like this are baffling to me.
At best it might be something interesting and it's not it would have raised the price of the game.
Responses like this are baffling to me.
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but what kind of disrespect would it be on Sony's part to force Bend Studio to work with another developer mid-way through the process of fleshing out their own creative vision, when we know that Sony is all for freedom of choice and direction within its WWS? These people working at Bend have their own concerns, pressures and milestones for their own new IP (and first ambitious console title in many years), without having a third party join the equation and complicate a process that they're trying to simplify so they can finish and ship it. Very few in this thread that are pushing for MP are thinking about this clearly or from any angle other than "what's wrong with more content?".
It's obvious to see why Sony turned it down. It's obvious why that was a good decision. Even the CEO of Saber looks to rationalise their decision too.
It's obvious to see why Sony turned it down. It's obvious why that was a good decision. Even the CEO of Saber looks to rationalise their decision too.
Because the developer's original vision didn't, and still doesn't, include MP.
To me it's baffling that some people are okay with having MP stuck in for shits and giggles.
I wouldn't hate the idea of multiplayer modes like horde, score attack or anything that uses the massive amount of zombies they can get on screen.
But it would need to be something planned and worked on from the initial planning stages and not just have a dev come and ask after seeing what you've decided to go with.
That wouldn't lead to anything worthwhile. You can guarantee gamers that probably weren't buying it anyway would then turn around and use it against the game "wow, multiplayer is dead what a bomba" and every review in the cons section it would list the multiplayer.
But it would need to be something planned and worked on from the initial planning stages and not just have a dev come and ask after seeing what you've decided to go with.
That wouldn't lead to anything worthwhile. You can guarantee gamers that probably weren't buying it anyway would then turn around and use it against the game "wow, multiplayer is dead what a bomba" and every review in the cons section it would list the multiplayer.
