He guys what do you think about Aliens Vs Predator 2 not have Co-Op campaign missions again? I just can't believe it.

The whole draw I think of playing in the Alien world is that idea of teaming up with you buddies in a marine squad and hunting through eerie corridors and hallways for Aliens.

The Lead designer on this project is just a moron. I mean who here played Hidden&Dangerous? And who didn't just LOVE the Co-Op in that game?

Man, they are really missing the boat on this one.

Jeff

I think that in a plot-driven game like AvP2, it makes sense not to have co-op play.

>I mean who here played Hidden&Dangerous? And who didn't just LOVE the Co-Op in that game?


I'm willing to bet that, worldwide, the number of people who played H&D co-op could fit in a high school auditorium. And that's not worth the development time.

I love co-op. I think it's KEEN. But it's not trivial to add in a game, espeicially a plot-driven one, and I don't begrudge any developer who would rather spend that time making the single-player experience better.

IMO it is a waste of a good license.

>I think that in a plot-driven game like AvP2, it makes sense not to have co-op play.

What? So, in any plot driven game, which is well...almsot ALL FPS games, you don't think there should be Co-Op play?

I totally disagree. I have 3 computers at home and I have been "exposed" to the joys of Co-Op play. This has basically turned me off most, if not all, single player games. They just aren't fun anymore. "Why play alone, when I can play with my friends?" This is what I ask myself all the time when I play on my computer.

I just can't play single player games anymore. They are boring compared to Co-Op, or even head-to-head games.

Take for instance Operation Flashpoint. I have had the oppotunity to player the final version, and while it was interesting for a bit, it evetually just got routine and boring. BUT when I played the single Co-Op mission that shipped with the game with 2 friends of mine all i can say is... Holly crap! It was so much god doamn fun we stayed up for hours playing it over and over until we finished it.

Co-Op play is really the way to go if you can go that way. Looks at all the games that survive the test of time. What is the one thing that is common about them? Co-Op play.

Jeff

I'm gonna side with J on this one. IMO, the whole point to playing AvP is playing the marines as part of a squad. If you want to fine tune it, the sole purpose of the game should be to reinact the scene from Aliens under the reactor when the squad gets ambushed. Compare how that would be as a single player experience versus a co-op experience. As a matter of fact I wish Cornered Rats would pull a War of the Worlds twist on the WW2OL masses. I can just see German and French tanks surrounding a big crater waiting for the alien hoverships with the big stalk eye that shoots green death rays to come up and anhilate them. Now that would be fun co-op.

Then again, I think I have lost 90% of my faith in single player games. We are the MMOL generation.

I don't think Jason was trying to say that he doesn't WANT co-op play in plot-based games, but rather that it's just not popular enough for most developers to spend their time on. And there I have to agree--it's a neat feature that most people probably never even touch.

They could do it like (sorry to bring this up) Daikatana and toss the narrative stuff aside and just allow people to run through the levels blasting aliens.

This is one those chicken-egg things...

Co-Op isn't "mainstream" so we don't put it in, but if you don't put it in then it doesn't get to be "mainstream".

For a game like AvP2, it just screams Co-Op play. I can't see playing it any otherway.

AvP got slammed becuase of it's lame Multiplayer support. In fact, some clever player figured how to get the single player mission somewhat working Co-Op, albeit it was a hack and work around, it made the game 100 times better to play. You would think that when they made a sequel they would take that into consideration.

I guess my argument is that Co-Op, or for that matter, fully funcitonal and supported multiplayer should be expect in most games, with the obivous exceptions. i.e. Puzzle games, and others.

Imagine what your reaction would have been if Blizzard released Star Craft WITHOUT multiplayer play. Or how about if they only allowed you to play head-to-head, and not Co-Op. You would be screaming for thier heads on a silver platter.

What I am trying to say is that FPS games like AvP2, especially AvP2, should be no different.

I understand the excuses for not putting Co-Op play in most games. It's just that I think most of those excuses are bullshit.

Jeff

Not surprisingly, a big reason co-op play doesn't get into games is cost. It can be very expensive to develop and test.

The cost depends on the game. If it's a straight shoot-em-up, you may be able to simply just toss more badguys into the mix. And if it's a game style that already supports a skirmish mode, it may not be too pricey to add skirmish mode against multiple PCs.

Story driven games though, can get their own nightmares. Encounters and equipment may have to be balanced and tested for each player count. You may not be able to assume that players are in the same locations (which can ruin tricks used to increase performance).

Cooperative play very nearly did not make it into Rainbow Six. It was on a knife edge at the end, just due to lack of time. Fortunately, we managed to squeeze it in (and I think that the game would have been sadly diminished without it). But the only reason we were able to do so was that the game was already balanced and the engine built for having lots of actors moving around independently in the space to accomplish the mission.

Now, it is true that cooperative play can fly under the hardcore radar (since it seems to be played largely on home or office LANs, and not through matchmaking services). But I suspect the reason you see for it not being included in more games is basic economics; everything costs money, and you have to pick which features you can afford to implement.

--Dave

I can understand the economics of game making, but I just don't buy that Co-Op play isn't added in general soley because of cost.

If you factor in the benefits of having Co-Op play in certain games the benefits definately outwiegh the costs.

Does anyone think that Rainbow six would have lasted as long as it had and became as successful as it has if Co-Op play was completely gone from the game? Sure, it would still have been a cool single player game but it bet it would have faded into obscurity alot faster if it wasn't for all the multiplayer elements, especially Co-Op.

I just think Co-Op is over looked too much and not enough value is placed on it. IMHO.

Games like AvP would have been rocked with Co-Op play, but now it just collects dust on a shelf in my office.

Jeff

If you factor in the benefits of having Co-Op play in certain games the benefits definately outwiegh the costs.

I love co-op, I never finished System Shock 2 single player but co-op it was great. Serious Sam was also fun co-op. Used to play TA that way against the computers in skirmish mode. Even tried Star Lancer but the missions were so damn difficult at points we quit playing.

I am all for co-op in games although I do suspect there are a very small percentage of people that actually play games in this manner.

-- Xaroc

Co-op for AvP 2 would be a nice feature for marketing to trumpet. I don't know why the game couldn't just scale up the numbers or difficulties of enemies based on the number of players playing as marines, sort of like how Diablo 2 handles it.

Do you think Rainbow Six would have generated the sales that it did solely as a single player game?

Do you thnk Diablo II would have just sold 1 million copies of the expansion if it wasn't for the fact that the multiplayer aspect of Diablo II has kept it alive this long and has generate the fan base?

Co-Op can sell a game.

One way that a game generates good sales is by having a long visible life in the market. Co-Op play I believe extends the life of a game and therefore in the long run generates enough extra sales to justify any development time.

Anyway, being a software developer I believe that a good designer should be able to design a game from the ground up that has Multiplayer. It shouldn't be a burden, or an add-on, aka kludge to add Multiplayer. If it is then you have a bad design.

Jeff

One more example... Half-Life. Don't even try to tell me that Counter Strike didn't keep this game breathing and kickin' long after it should have died.

Jeff

Co-op implies that people must work together and there's the rub. In order for that to be successful, people have to WANT to work together. Given that most any Tribes match that had friendly fire enabled ended up with some asshole blowing up his own team "just for fun", there really isn't any point in trying to make it work.

Gamers are often take Jackass to new levels when they don't know the rest of the players. It's great when you've got a bunch of friends that want to play the same game as you and it supports co-op. But the bottom line is that development costs are already astronomical for most PC games and adding something like co-op will often push the budget over the top with very little to gain IMO.

Heck even with the core group I sometimes play with online, we still have our differences in play style. Consider also that many single player levels in 3D games are too small for even two to four players to work through together. For example, id built Quake 3 Arena around multiplayer play so they could make levels that focused on the multiplayer experience and not be held back by the constraints of single player design. The same principle often applies to co-op designs.

There's minimal return on the investment, hence it gets axed.

--Dave

Dave,

Did you actually read my posts, or do you just like to see yourself type?

Co-Op has a HUGE retrun on investment if it is done right. I.E. DIABLO II, HALF-LIFE/COUNTER STRIKE, HIDDEN&DANGEROUS, STAR CRAFT, COMBAT MISSION etc...

How can you deny this? The reason these games are still around, the reason they STILL sell copies, the reason the makers STILL patch them, the reason the makers STILL make add-ons, is because the multiplayer aspect, be it Co-Op, or head-to-head. Period. You can't deny this. So to sit there and type "There's minimal return on the investment," is to fly in the face of logic, and reality.

Jeff

But I assumed from your topic that you're talking about 3D first person games, not RTS games. That's a whole different genre with different rules. Combat Mission? Diablo II? Star Craft? I mean c'mon...that's a whole other area of discussion.

When it comes right down to it, co-op in first person games isn't what you're making it out to be. Counter Strike, despite wumpus' mad raving, is still a niche of the hardcore. Sorry to burst your bubble there. Hidden and Dangerous is even MORE niche. Like...non-existent niche even.

Never mind that you didn't respond to the first part of my reply. What's the single most damning criticism of online play heard from just about EVERY gamer? People cheat, steal, lie and don't play fair. Co-op games are ALL subject to this problem.

If I'm so wrong, why are we in a thread about a game that will contain NO co-op because it's not worth it to the creators to put it in?

--Dave

While I agree that Diablo II, for instance, is great largely because at its heart it's a co-op game, correlation and causation are different things. The fact that certain games with co-op play have sold well does not ipso facto establish that co-op is the reason these games have sold well. Could be a lot of other things, or a combination of things. Without being able to test what happens when we release the same games without co-op play, we can't be sure.

I could list a whole slew of games without co-op play that have sold well or have done well critically, and that wouldn't prove that co-op is useless, either. Statistics can't help us here, really.

I like co-op games, and I was happy for instance to see when I visited Red Storm that Ghost Recon will let you play through the campaign in co-op mode. But do I play co-op? Not really, except with my wife sometimes. Why? I don't have a schedule that matches up with enough people of similar tastes to play co-op games regularly. Hell, I have trouble keeping up with my PBEM games, as Bub will tell ya :-).

And I suspect that game developers and publishers realize there are a whole lot of people like me out there. We're a lot more numerous than the folks who assiduously pursue and play co-op games. Developers I talk to, and I talk to a lot of them, usually want co-op stuff, but it's almost always one of the things that goes first when the crunch comes. It isn't easy to do in a game where it isn't planned from the get-go, and few developers want to commit to it from the start because it costs a lot.

Dave,

The reson i didn't respond to the first part of your post (cheaters and stuff), is because that is not what we are talking about. Team Killers on Counter Strike is not the issue here.

As for trying to seperate Multiplayer from one genre to another... You can't do it. The concept and idea behind Multiplayer/Templay/Co-Op is all the same from game to game. It makes no difference if you cappin CTs in the spawn, or makin another Zerg rush.

I shouldn't have to make a long boring list of games that garnered most of thier success because of thier multiplayer aspect. You are smart. I have already named a few. Figure it out.

Jeff

"Hell, I have trouble keeping up with my PBEM games, as Bub will tell ya :-)."

Nods vigorously.
Smiles. Then returns to secret plan to kidnap Mr. Mayer when he foolishly sets foot in Milwaukee soon.

Robert,

You have to admit that games do lose steam over time. There is the initial hype. The marketing. The hot sales in the store. The great reviews and fan sites that pop up. I would argue that with single player games, in most cases, this cycle doesn't last long. To make this cylce even shorter the media and press has turned most of us into game whores. One day its Diablo II, the next it's Max Payne. My computer sees more variety and action in one month than my bed in any given year.

Therefore, I argue that Multiplayer in a game, be it RTS, FPS, ADVENTURE, it doesn't matter, adds that extended life to a game. The game can generate countless more sales than it would have ever got had it been single player only. I am saying that today's developers just don't get this.

Take a look around. What big sellers out there don't have a multiplayer option or plans for one in the works? Hardly any...

1. EQ
2. AC
3. UO
4. Diablo & Diablo II & EXPANSION
5. COMBAT MISSION (For it's genre it has been a smash succes, and the ONLY reason I still play it is because of the PBEM)
6. The SIM (It's going online).
7. Black & White (Surprise, going online also)
8. Star Craft
9. Quake 3
10. Counter Strike

All these games have been HUGE sellers for thier genre. Hell, most of them are huge sellers period.

It's the multiplayer in these games that keep them around. Granted they are good games by thier own right, BUT I can name a ton of other "good" games that have come out within the last couple years that have faded to obscurity because they are no longer, so to speak, in our face.

Multiplayer keeps the games "out there". You have to admit that. And the longer a game stays "out there" the more sales it will generate.

Jeff

And to keep this on point, Jeff is still correct about Alien vs Predator. It will be a mere shadow of what it could be without co-op. Screw head to head even, I like Mark's Diablo drop-in idea best. The heart of the game, to me anyway, is facing off as a marine against either the perfect killing machines or the perfect hunter. The best part is being up against that stuff with a buddy (even an anonymous online buddy).

It isn't like the developers couldn't make the game have co-op, dozens already have it. If they hacked the co-op because they were running out of money and decided it was more important to have a really fleshed out single player story, then they are seriously missing what people really care about, and spend money on. And don't give me this crap that they're designing games for the customer with the 350 mhz processor and a 33.6 modem who doesn't care about online gaming. They should be targeting the games right at me! I hate to do this, but let me do a quick calculation...

I've spent $1500 on games in the last 12 months*.

I don't work in the industry. I'm the regular schmuck who reads the game mags, has enough know-how to patch a game and get online. I am the uber computer game consumer. Give me co-op AvP2, or I'm not going to buy it, and neither will people like me.

*If my SO discovers this it will be a grisly end for me. Remember me as a man who stood toe to toe with Capitalistdoginchina and didn't flinch.

"To make this cylce even shorter the media and press has turned most of us into game whores."
... "My computer sees more variety and action in one month than my bed in any given year."

And you're blaming the game press for this? ;>

-Andrew

One of the things to be leary of is conflating "the things which will make me buy a game" and "the things which drive overall game sales".

If your list of purchased games isn't matching very closely to the top of the sales list, then by definition "the things which will make you buy a game" are different than "the things which drive overall game sales". Even if it is, the reasons may vary.

This isn't to say that the things you want in games are unimportant; far from it. But understand that individual desires are not the marketplace. "This is the sort of game I would like to play" is a true and useful statement. Statements as to the relative costs and benefits of various features are only accurate if you have solid information on the real costs and the impact on sales.

To put it bluntly, if games which lack Feature X can succeed spectacularly in the marketplace, and games which have Feature X can fail, don't point to Feature X as a must have feature the lack of which is inexcusable.

--Dave

'I've spent $1500 on games in the last 12 months.'

Good. Lord. That's.....something like 5% of the US per-capita income.

"Good. Lord. That's.....something like 5% of the US per-capita income. "

I only wish I was kidding. And if I weren't so addicted to the "next best thing" I could have spent $300 on the 7 games I really liked (Ground Control, Combat Mission, Sacrifice, WW2OL, Operation Flashpoint, Diablo 2, Kohan). Why on Earth did I buy Age of Sail 2????!!? The F'ing Sims!?! Ugh. Who am I kidding, I'll buy AvP2 even if it has a bad story, is unplayable for the first 4 weeks before the patch, and has an interface as boring as Myst. Logically, I won't buy it without co-op, but because I'm mentally challenged when it comes to these things, I'll get it anyway.

---

Quote:

What big sellers out there don't have a multiplayer option or plans for one in the
works? Hardly any...

1. EQ
2. AC
3. UO
4. Diablo & Diablo II & EXPANSION
5. COMBAT MISSION (For it's genre it has been a smash succes, and the ONLY reason I still play it is
because of the PBEM)
6. The SIM (It's going online).
7. Black & White (Surprise, going online also)
8. Star Craft
9. Quake 3
10. Counter Strike

---

Also, I realize that I only listed 6 of the top 10 games, and Diablo would account for a couple more of those slots, but refer to my rant on the percentage of people playing online for my thoughts on that.

I also realize that I left out my ending parenthesis. I did this to make a point. Just don't ask what it was, because I shouldn't have to explain myself. If you don't get it, then you don't deserve to.

And, for the record, I don't entirely disagree that AvP2 -- yes, it would be better with multiplayer. Most of the games I play these days DO have multiplayer support. But, as Dave said, that doesn't mean that multiplayer sells games. That was the point I was trying to make in my last post.

And games like Counter-Strike have only managed huge popularity because they're based on a game that first sold millions based on an almost entirely single-player game. With no co-op.

Think about Half-Life for a minute. You could scale up the enemies for co-op, but part of the plot and challenge involves being captured, or working out a challenge that just wouldn't work with multiple people.

Example: let's say your shooter has a scene where bombs are going off and it's unstable, and there's a scripted seuqence where the hall collapses behind you, and Aliens rush out. Nowhere to retreat to, and it's scary. Now make it co-op with four people. When does the tunnel collapse? When the last team member passes? Then when do the aliens rush out? What if three of your guys are off ahead in another hallway at the time?

Making a game with a compelling single-player plot is usually directly at odds with making a game that doesn't break in co-op play. And given that 95% of the players will never touch co-op, I can't blame developers for where they spend their time.

For AvP2, they're doing a smarter thing I think, which is build in team-based multiplayer modes. Like Evac, where the marines have reach the evac zone of a very linear level and the aliens try to stop them, and the marines have limited lives.

Besides, with the right AI, they can recreate the feeling of "teaming up with your buddies in a marine squad" without breaking the game. Sure, they're not your actual friends, but you still get that "marine squad sensation." Or something.

Will AvP2 support bots? I like the team-based stuff in UT even when playing solo due to the bots.

>I am the uber computer game consumer. Give me co-op AvP2, or I'm not going to buy it, and neither will people like me.

Okay, I call "bullshit." =)

If you've spent $1500 on games in the last 12 months, you'll buy AvP2 without co-op, and so will most of the "uber comptuer game consumers." Or rather, the lack of co-op isn't going to be the deal breaker for them that they say it is. 99% of the hardcore that say "I was going to get it, but not if it doesn't have co-op" will pick it up within the first week anyway.

"Ugh. Who am I kidding, I'll buy AvP2 even if it has a bad story, is unplayable for the first 4 weeks before the patch, and has an interface as boring as Myst. Logically, I won't buy it without co-op, but because I'm mentally challenged when it comes to these things, I'll get it anyway."

Sorry Jason, I already called it on myself.

Okay, the Sims made big money. So did Black & White. Also, Roller coaster Tycoon. BUT... Are these games going to be around in six months? Hell, three? Are they going to consistently generate revenue over the long haul? Will they build up a huge fan base that will continue to grow and exist into the future?

Probably not. Now what games have already done this? Yep, you guessed it. Games that support Multiplayer.

Half-Life was huge as a single player game but the ONLY reason it is still around is because of the Multiplayer community. THEY kept this game alive. THEY kept in on the front pages, so to speak. That is why it has been patch and added on to so many times. Heck, most of the patches that Half-life has received recently have been in support of Multiplayer play.

What I am arguing, is not that Multiplayer is the uber god feature of games, BUT that Multiplayer is a VERY valuable and at times necessary feature to a game that developers shouldn't cast away by claiming it is not cost effective. BS. It is.

BTW, I am NOT going to buy AvP2. Why? I played the same game when I played AvP, and I barely finished any of the single player mission. I got almost all my mileage out of it playing Co-Op with my friends using the hack. AvP2 has no compelling feature in my eyes except for Co-Op play and if it doesn't have that. Then I am not interested.

Jeff

---

Quote:

Okay, the Sims made big money. So did Black & White. Also, Roller coaster Tycoon. BUT... Are these games going to be around in six months? Hell, three? Are they going to consistently generate revenue over the long haul? Will they build up a huge fan base that will continue to grow and exist into the future?

---

"In fact, Counter-Strike's success is a direct result of Half-Life having an incredible and well received single player game as Jason noted above. Without that, no one owns Half-Life to begin with and Counter-Strike is either a Q3A or UT mod or just doesn't exist, period. Half-Life had lousy multiplayer out of the box, BTW. It took numerous patches to get the game multiplayer playable (which was strange given it's built on the Quake 2 engine)."

This is just not true. I can rattle off a dozen decent mods for all three engines that mean absolutely nothing. The success or failure of the mod has a little to do with the sales figures of the underlying engine, but a LOT MORE to do with the quality of the gameplay contained in the mod.

I grant you that it's sort of a chicken and egg scenario-- but to write off counter-strike's success as "because of half-life" is a gross injustice to the incredibly addictive gameplay mechanics Gooseman (et al) came up with.

99% of MODs are absolute crap. The few that aren't are merely decent, something to spend a few hours with as a novelty, and then move on. But to come up with something that is now the most popular online FPS ever, and retaining 50,000+ players per day almost two years later.. that's nothing short of a friggin' MIRACLE.

http://www.gamespy.com/stats

Also, Half-Life didn't have lousy multiplayer out of the box. That's a common misconception. It could have been better, sure, and it did get better marginally over time. But only marginally-- the only _major_ change was about 6 months ago with the new lag-friendly net code. Regardless, it was perfectly playable on a decent connection right out of the box. I know because I played it plenty at the time. If you want to talk about lousy OOB multiplayer, that would be something like Unreal, or Shogo.

I remember playing plain ole original Half Life mutli fine over the net and on a LAN. I remember Quake 2 having some netcode jitters when it was first released though.

BTW, I thought Half Life used a heavily modified version of the Quake 1 engine. I still notice the Quake 1 feel whenever i play Half Life and its many derivatives. I still prefer the Quake 1 netcode over the Quake 2 AND 3 netcode. i have a theory that Half Life did well online becuase it used the best of the quake engines... the original quake. or am i wrong? i forget. sorry scatterbrainde again.

etc

Dave Long Said:
"If you hadn't been rude to me above, I wouldn't answer this way, but...

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

RollerCoaster Tycoon is two and a half years old, has no multiplayer and is STILL topping the charts and has been for TWO YEARS. The Sims is a year and a half old now and still riding high. While Black & White hasn't been as universally received as the other two, it did very well for a game that probably better fits the hardcore bill and we really don't know where it'll be six months from now. It's also arguably not as good a game for either the hardcore or the casual gamer."

Whaaa. I didn't know you were so "sensitive", but talk about rude....

Anyway, I do know what the hell I am talking about. It is you that have no idea what i am talking about.

Multiplayer and Co-Op are two seperate things? What? Hello, McFly? Anybody in there?

Co-Op is a SUBSET of Multiplayer play. You can't have Co-Op without Multiplayer play. Duh.

Ya know, somethings I leave out of my post just because they seem obivous and I assume people can interpret the idea. I assumed wrong I guess.

For any game to think, let alone AvP, that they are gonna be the next Roller Coaster Tycoon or The Sims is naive at best. Stupid at the worst. The most rest assured method I believe for making a game profitable is giving it a long shelf life. Multiplayer features, a.k.a Co-Op being one, is the way to do this.

Lets be honests, as for the Sims and RCT, how many of us here are still playing those games? Be honest. How many of us? I bet most of us in this forum would like to think we are on the cutting edge of games and what is "good", so how many of us in this forum are playing RCT or The Sims currently?

I'm not. Ya know what games I AM playing? Diablo 2, Counter Strike, Startopia (with my friend), Combat Mission. Hmmm... They seem to all support Multiplayer, and I fact I was playing Multiplayer in most of these games.

One other game I am playing is Max Payne, but hey, that game rocks. But ya know, after I play it for about a week, I will be like, "Well, that was fun, but I am bored with it," and I won't play the game again. That is what I am talking about.

So, now after the hype dies down on Max Payne how many copies do you think wil go flying off the self in 6-12 months? Probably less than the first 6, BUT if they would have had Multiplayer support I would be that in 6-12 months sales would still be going strong.

Jeff

"How many of us? I bet most of us in this forum would like to think we are on the cutting edge of games and what is "good", so how many of us in this forum are playing RCT or The Sims currently?"

Guess what - folks like us don't make up the marketplace that ultimately determines how much money a game makes. The Sims and RCT make a wheelbarrow of money because they appeal to the masses. And the masses don't care much about multiplater.

"Probably less than the first 6, BUT if they would have had Multiplayer support I would be that in 6-12 months sales would still be going strong."

Why? If you like multiplayer, and Max had multiplayer, why wouldn't you buy it in the first six months? Are people who value multiplayer slow to purchase? Or do they continue to repurchase the same program for years on end?

I love co-op multiplayer. But the data has shown that multiplayer doesn't make a game the kind of big hit that companies are looking for. I'd be willing to bet that Diablo 2 would still be a huge hit with no multiplayer at all.

I too am surprised that AvP2 doesn't include co-op. Speaking of missing co-op, anybody know how that B-17 game did in the market? Seems to me that everybody and their brother was poised to buy it, and then Hasbro dropped the ball and axed co-op play. Essentially, I think certain games depend heavily on multiplayer, and in specific cases, co-op. Diablo comes to mind immediately. Can you imagine Neverwinter Nights or Halo as single-player games? While certainly not true of all games, co-op can be the difference between a sleeper hit and a retail bomb. Word of mouth matters.

- Alan

Jeff lackey wrote:
"Guess what - folks like us don't make up the marketplace that ultimately determines how much money a game makes. The Sims and RCT make a wheelbarrow of money because they appeal to the masses. And the masses don't care much about multiplater."

I disagree. A game may sell well but if it doesn't pass the muster of the "hardcore" scene its rarely a success story. The Sims passed muster and so did RCT, that's why they did well in the long run. Mind you it isn't automatic, but it has to pass muster. The "masses" picked up on these games after the hardcore minority gave it a huge thumbs up and raved about it.

Jeff Lackey wrote:
"Why? If you like multiplayer, and Max had multiplayer, why wouldn't you buy it in the first six months? Are people who value multiplayer slow to purchase? Or do they continue to repurchase the same program for years on end?"

No. No. No. Think about it. The "masses" so to speak aren't people like us. That we can agree on. They aren't following the game rags religiously waiting for "THE GAME" to come out next. They are the people that casualy look for games and don't like to be confused or intimidated by games. They want fun, but don't want to be "hardcore" about it like we are. It takes this mass of people time to ctach onto games. Word of mouth takes time. Exposure takes time. The reason The Sims and RCT still sell strong, just like Diablo and Half-Life, is that people are still talking about them. The developers are still supporting the games. They are still in the game rags. They are getting exposure. Period.

So, if I am making a game and I pretty sure I am not making the next The Sims, I have to add features to my game that will help it sustain itself in the market. What better way than Multiplayer? And for that matter Co-Op? It creates and community of players. It generates talk and a long term "buzz". With the long term exposure comes more sales. With more sales comes more money. With more money comes more and better support. With more and better support comes better feedback from users. Better feedback, more sales.

Look at Counter Strike. Just look at it. Counter Strike kept Half-Life on the selves LONG AFTER it had seen it's day. If it wasn't for it, and other mods like Team Fortress, Half-Life would have made it's run, sold big, and then moved on to the next thing, but since it has gotten so much press, word of mouth, online support, and a huge fanbase it has survived.

Yeah, it a great game, but it is the multiplayer aspect that eventually brought Half-Life to the heights it would have never achieved if it was single player only.

Look at games like Rainbow Six. Sure, great single player, but incredible Multiplayer.

The evidence is out there. Multiplayer is a valid and valuable feature that shouldn't be discarded once a developers hits a rough spot.

Jeff

"I disagree. A game may sell well but if it doesn't pass the muster of the "hardcore" scene its rarely a success story."

Look at the PCData for the last two or three years. Deer Hunter. Who Wants to be a Millionaire. Etc, etc.

Rainbow Six and SWAT 3 are a couple for favorites for me, and primarily for multiplayer. I love multiplayer. I just don't think the overall data supports it being a key to huge sales. Or all that relevant to huge sales.

Jeff Lackey wrote:
"Look at the PCData for the last two or three years. Deer Hunter. Who Wants to be a Millionaire. Etc, etc."

While they may have sold well I doubt that anyone in the industry are going to hold those two games up as the pinnacle of our achievements in the 1990s.

You can always pick out a couple of fluke or nitch market games. If you are gonna mention, Who Wants To Be A Millionaire you might was well rate Microsoft Hearts right up there at the top since tons of people play that game also, and I bet if you sold it on the shelf people would be snapping it up to.

A few games every year are gonna do what Deer Hunter did, find a nitch market, aka Hunters, and make a game that appeals to them.

We all can agree though that there is a "serious" category for certain games out there. I think we can all be pretty sure that the makers of Deer Hunter were more concerned on how to part avid hunters with thier 20 bucks than on making a good, let alone great, game. And lets face it, Jim Bob who blasts bucks every fall doesn't have a good grasp on when he is being soaked for his 20 dollars, that is, when it comes to computer games.

Deer Hunter, Regis and his lame game show, are in a different "category" when it comes to real mainstream games. Lets not try and compare "Virtual Barbie" with Diablo II, please.

We all know there are two kinds of developers out there, those who ONLY care about making a buck, and those who care about making a good game AND making a buck. Lets stick to the second group otherwise someone might be inclined to bring up Pokeman Blue, or some crap like that, and then I will be forced to hunt them down and beat them like the red-headed step-child they are.

Jeff

What makes games stay on shelves is simple. They are selling. What makes games sell, now that is a harder question.

It isn't a mission editor, or a mod system, or random scenario creation, or multiplayer, or any number of other bullet points. Games with these features fail, and games without them succeed beyond the dreams of their developers.

It isn't big marketing pushes and lots of hype, well hyped products can and do fail.

And it isn't even enough to be a good or even a great game, otherwise we wouldn't have the perennial magazine articles on "the best games you aren't playing" (some of which might even have co-op play).

And that, fundamentally, is the problem with the assertion made multiple times in this thread. You can't say that co-op (or any other feature) is guaranteed to be worth the cost of putting it in. Because there is no "magic" equation that determines how much any given feature will drive sales. And even if there were, sometimes, the "cost" of putting in a feature may be that the product never sees the light of day, because the company that was making it ran out of funds.

No game is going to be perfect. The developers are working within a number of constraints; some technical, some creative, and many financial. And by definition, that means that some things are going to have to be cut. And that means that design, art, engineering, and the money crunchers need to weigh the cost and importance of features.

--Dave

And, in some games, despite potential, multiplayer sucks. If it's badly implemented, they'd have been better off leaving it out altogether. Or patching it in later -- which is exceedinly difficult to do, but it's been done before.

Oh, and by the way -- I still play RCT and the Sims on occasion. Not constantly, but consistently. I'm probably in the minority around here, but I just thought I'd make it known. (Granted, it's more because my wife is interested in them than anything else, but still...)

And casual games that I know are seriously into RCT, even to this day. Don't discredit that game.

Ultimately, while multiplayer, and especially (on occasion, co-op) is tons of fun, and lots of people enjoy it, it's still a small percentage of the people that buy the game. So it makes sense that a developer might axe it if they're running low on funds. That's better than axing the game altogether.

"Deer Hunter, Regis and his lame game show, are in a different "category" when it comes to real mainstream games. Lets not try and compare "Virtual Barbie" with Diablo II, please."

Well, your original point was based on what would make a game sell. If you want to talk "mainstream", go to Best Buy and look through the shelves. Then tell me Barbie and Regis aren't "mainstream." Perhaps we're playing semantics, but great games, for serious gamers, and mainstream, as in what sells a ton, aren't synonymous. And multiplayer, while a major focus of online forums and usenet (hmmmm....), isn't that important to the majority of people who purchase games, including "good" games.

But that's the thing that rubs me. If you look at the games you would like to call "mainstream" most of them are utter and complete crap, yet they are made and people buy them, but is it fair to not call our games mainstream? Just because Ford Fiestas are cheap cars and alot of people by them is it fair to call BMWs not mainstream? But this is what you are doing. Just because a minority buys actually good games we are not considered mainstream, when I like to believe we are mainstream. We are just have better taste and sense. ;)

I have been playing computer games since I was 12. I am now 29 years old. Anyone here remember the game "Sabotage"? Or how about "Load Runner"? Did anyone of you actually play "Ultima 1&2" on your Apple IIE? I did, and dammit I get POed when I go to Best Buy and see the load of crap they have on the shelf stinking up the place.

Anyway, my point is that Multiplayer, and yes Co-Op often more than not can make a game sell. I still believe that. AvP2 I believe would do insanely better in retail if they had a Co-Op. There is no way to convince me otherwise, and like some other games I believe they wouldn't have sold as much as they have if it wasn't for thier Multiplayer features.

Jeff

---

Quote:

I did, and dammit I get POed when I go to Best Buy and see the load of crap they have on the shelf stinking up the place.

---

"AvP is a strong license, but look at the popularity of Counterstrike."

First let's draw a line. Co-op means "playing through the single player game with friends". Like Baldur's Gate or Serious Sam allows. Counter-strike is a fancy team-based multiplayer game. As far as I know, AvP2 will have multiplayer deathmatch, CTF, and probably team DM.

Aside from the technical logisitics of supporting multiplayer co-op in a game designed for single player, the likely reason their not doing it is because of the story. Like someone said earlier, would Half-Life work in co-op? Did you hate Nolf because it didn't have co-op?


-Andrew

Jeff Shandorf wrote: "Anyway, my point is that Multiplayer, and yes Co-Op often more than not can make a game sell."

Alan Au wrote: "Back on topic, it seems to me that word of mouth is the main reason games sell well, mainstream or otherwise."

Man, you guys are on crack. :)

Word of mouth can be important in *helping* a game sell. Multiplayer can help a game with a *small* subset of gamers. But you're both placing far too much importance on peripheral issues.

Advertising. Name recognition. Branding. Retail leverage. Pre-existing fan bases. Media coverage. Accessibility to casual users. Wide appeal. These things are all *far* more important factors.

I'm all for multiplayer gaming, Jeff, and I dig co-op, too. But you have a *grossly* inflated concept of its importance among gamers at large (so do developers BTW). And, Alan, word-of-mouth can certainly boost sales, but it's ludicruous to suppose it's the "main" reason a game sells well.

Where would Deer Hunter be without Wal-Mart? Where would RollerCoaster Tycoon be without Hasbro's retail pull? Where would Diablo II be without Diablo? Where would Red Alert 2 be without Westwood's reputation? Where would The Sims and Black & White be without EA's ad budget flung far and wide beyond game mags? Where would Half-Life be without all that great early buzz? Where would Age of Empires be without Microsoft's muscle?

You guys consider these questions before you wax grandiose about multiplayer support and word-of-mouth.

-Tom, bursting bubbles in all 48 states

Bub, sorry about the confusion; the point I was trying to make concerned branding rather than co-op. Bad example. :(

As for co-op, I'm just disappointed that it comes down to dollars rather than enjoyment. This is basically the developers admitting that they're reducing the fun-factor due to budgetary constraints. What ever happened to the notion of developers making games that they wanted to play? I personally believe that the co-op experience is worth the resources devoted to making it work, particularly if multiplayer support is already implemented.

Tom, I would by no means discount word-of-mouth. How many people on this very board have picked up Sacrifice and Flying Heroes at your suggestion? ;) Seriously though, you can always generate the early buzz if marketing is on the ball. It's the sustained sales that I wonder about.

Why isn't Hasbro's X-Com Enforcer flying off the store shelves? What about Westwood's C&C Sole Survivor or Microsoft's Deadly Tide? Didn't Trespasser generate a lot of great early buzz?

I'm willing backpedal on my assertion that word-of-mouth is the main force driving game sales, but I still believe it is a decisive factor in determining whether or not a game is a hit.

- Alan

Its funny how little things can rip you out of your perspective: I always thought it was Jeff S. Handorf

It's all about word of mouth.

The more mass-market you get, the more you depend upon word of mouth. For the hardcore fans (including anybody reading this), coverage and ads and magazines provide more than word of mouth, because you're discriminating enough to have opinions on what you want.

Go to Toys'R'Us and try to browse for a console game. You can't. They're all locked behind glass in alphabetical order with no access even to the limited info on the case. Toys is the biggest seller of console games in this country. You think all those 12 year olds are wandering through the aisles looking for titles to jump out at them? No. They go to pick up games they have seen at friend's houses or heard about from friends.

What makes this issue tricky is the fact that the word of mouth has to start from the hardcore, and you reach the hard core through the traditional methods. The chain of 12 year olds usually starts with an avid EGM or such reader.

We are a community of like-minded hardcore gamers. I read on these boards that Game X is cool in ways that appeals to me. I buy it and like it, and then start pimping it to my non-hardcore friends. That's how word of mouth works.

I normally find the movies to games comparison deeply misleading, but it's useful here. Movie execs track the opening grosses of a film as a tool for judging the efficacy of the marketing. They check second weekend grosses as an indicator of the legs, which is driven entirely by word of mouth. A high-profile film will take in a large opening weekend, but will get very poor return viewings. All from word of mouth. Shrek isn't the biggest film of the summer due to its huge marketing. It opened well, but hit $200 based on word of mouth (in my unstudied opinion).

Movies have marketing budgets that enable them to reach across America, and they still define word of mouth as their most important marketing tool. In games, we can't reach anything other than the hardcore with our budgets (especially on PC). We also depend upon word of mouth.

KP

Tom, all that marketing "stuff" you mentioned merely gets the game's "foot in the door" so to speak. If it sucks word comes out and sales almost always drop off dramatically.

Yeah, there are games like Deer Hunter that do well even though they do suck royally but the reason those games sell well is because the people that are buying it don't have their ear to the grape vine.

You have to admit that there are drastically different kinds of consumers out there that buy games. Each one of them have a different perception and experience when it comes to buying "good" PC games. So, if you can tap into the "Ignorant Group" with games like Deer Hunter and "Virtual Fishing" you are gonna make money, which they have done time and time again.

Look at Black & White and The Sims. The Sims went through the roof like gang busters because word of mouth was good on it. Sure weirdoes like Bruce shunned the game as some strange "Life Simulator" but in general it got a thumbs up across the board. So, every type of gamer out there that had their ear to the grapevine bought the game. Now because of EA's marketing, hype, cheap release retail price (30 bucks) all the "other" groups picked the game up too (i.e. Ignorant Group, Casual Group, etc).

Now Black & White, I am not sure how it is doing exactly in sales, hasn't been nearly as successful as The Sims. The reason was, I believe, word of mouth. This game was just as hyped and marketed as The Sims, which of coarse garnered it the opening sales, but once word of mouth caught on the sales have tapered off. Granted it still sells well but it is not a smash hit like the The Sims.

Word of mouth I believe is huge. The reason I don't buy games, or even see movies, after I miss the release day is because someone tells me, who I trust, it sucks. I ask why. They tell me why it sucks and I believe them.

For example: Who here saw A.I. on opening day? Okay, now who didn't? For those of you who didn't, did a friend who saw it tell you it sucked? After that did you go and see it?

For me the answer is no. I sounded like it sucked and I will wait for the video. Just like if a game sucks I will wait until it hits the bargain bin and is selling for 10 bucks.

Jeff

And just to get back on the Co-Op/Multiplayer thing...

How come everyone here has pretty much said, "Hey, I love Co-Op play. I think it rocks," but they don't think it is important for a game to have it that can deliver a compelling Co-Op experience ala AvP2?

Just admit it guys, if AvP2 came out with some totally kick ass Co-Op play that completely recreated the "Aliens" movie experience, you guys would be crooning about louder than a bunch of horny tomcats on a fence.

And if this happened I would gamble my first born child the game would sell faster than crack on a street corner.

Jeff

Jeff wrote:

---

Quote:

How come everyone here has pretty much said, "Hey, I love Co-Op play. I think it rocks," but they don't think it is important for a game to have it that can deliver a compelling Co-Op experience ala AvP2?

---

---

Quote:

The reason is that for most people answering that way co-op is not a buy or not-buy factor when they chose games.

---

"Just like if a game sucks I will wait until it hits the bargain bin and is selling for 10 bucks."

Why would you spend ANY money on a game that sucks? You just gotta have it anyway, eh?

I haven't heard anybody say that Co-op in AvP2 wouldn't be a great thing. Most people have said "Yeah, co-op is great, but it's not what makes a game sell, and, when it comes down to the last few weeks and the last few dollars, it often gets cut, and for good reason." I'm sure everyone here would love it if practically EVERY game in the future had co-op -- but I doubt that will happen, and I doubt that it will have much of an impact on game sales. Good games sell. Bad games don't. Granted, there are exceptions, but it's true more often than it's not. And, contrary to what you've said, Jeff, you can have a good game -- that sells a lot -- without co-op, and a very bad game bomb, despite having co-op. There's just no connection between co-op and sales. That's all we're saying.

From jshandor: "Yeah, there are games like Deer Hunter that do well even though they do suck royally but the reason those games sell well is because the people that are buying it don't have their ear to the grape vine. "

Or perhaps it's good enough? It's cheap, it doesn't crash, it's simple, has low system resources, compared to the real thing there is a lot less standing around, getting wet, getting tired, eating crap food, don't have to worry about your hunting buddies being idiots with guns - i would imagine some people find it a hoot. Now, it's not you or me, but then, there are plenty of other people out there who wouldn't touch games like counterstike and red alert with a barge pole.

I can't see any reason that it "sucks". I just see reasons I won't like it. And that's the way things are.

For some reason my shrug encased in angled brackets doesn't show up - does anyone know what's going on?

Best Buy yesterday, browsing the pc games aisle... see a kid, junior high school kid talking to his dad...

"Dad, look! House Party! aw cool... its better than Livin Large!"

Dads looking at Rainbow Six/SWAT 3 boxes.

Son picks up House Party.

Dad sees son holding the colorful Sims House Party Box, "Oh cool. Lets get that. Didn't know they had a new Sims game."

And the family that plays together, buys together... and makes The Sims popular (and Rollercoaster Tycoon as well).

etc

My wife is an avid Sims and RCT fan. I enjoy them, too. They deserve to be selling like hotcakes. They have a much broader range of appeal than most game. It just makes sense.

Deer Hunter is a hunting sim. What made it succeed is that it relatively accurately depicts (or so I am given to understand) the real life information that deer hunters would use, and rewards real world knowledge and techniques.

Much like wargames, it was never dependent on cutting edge technology for its appeal.

Something to consider, especially in light of this weeks column on reviewing...

--Dave

Personally, I attribute a great deal of "Deer Hunter" sales to packaging alone. Way back in the day, Robert Westmorland was the game buying dude for Wal-mart on a national level. He told a certain PR person "What I really want is a deer huntin' game!" and specified that the package should be hunter orange with a sight-picture of a deer on it. Big bright-assed orange, and someone could stand clear across the store and see that box and say "Hey Ethel, that's a deer huntin' game!" There's no chance of confusion, regardless of the person's density, as to what that particular box holds.

Furthermore, the appeal of a game like Deer Hunter (Sims, RC Tycoon, whatever game) is that it isn't an abstract sci-fi or fantastic setting. It doesn't require a leap of imagination to understand the concept of what's going on. It took me a long time to realize the extent to which a lot of people are "grounded in reality" and don't want to deal with fiction (interactive or otherwise) that delves in alternate-reality settings. For those folks, these games retain appeal because they're grounded in the "real world". Same with westerns, detective stories, and to a lesser extent ghost tales. But, that's about as far as you can push some people.

Then again, I often wonder if those folks who are so grounded in reality have a distinct advantage over people like me. They obviously don't have a bunch of junk-knowledge and concepts taking up space in their noggin.

About co-op play:

I like co-op. It means I can share the single-play experience with one other person (I have two PC's for that) and not have to worry about fighting against them or finding a suitable server with other people on it to frag with their assistance.

Deathmatching just isn't that much fun in 1-vs-1 unless you're of equal skill. Co-op, however, rocks. Now, if you look at simulation games you enter a whole new realm of why co-op = good. Having a human wingman up there with you is pretty unbeatable. For flight sims, co-op is a godly state of being - because the only other alternative in multiplay is to fly around in circles shooting at that one other plane all day.

What about B-17 2?

When they announced that it wouldn't support Co-Op I recall the game flopped after it's release. I know I was going to buy it, but didn't after I heard that.

My point is, there ARE games that will sell more if they have Co-Op. I am not saying you can slap Co-Op on any old game and make it sell more but there are games that will and do benefit from it. Developers need to realize this fact.

Jeff

B-17 II took a lot of heat for being an unfinished game with a billion bugs. Co-Op had nothing to do with that failure. When the game doesn't even work out of the box with one guy playing, how the hell would it work with multiple players in the same plane?

---

Quote:

I am not saying you can slap Co-Op on any old game and make it sell more but there are games that will and do benefit from it.

---

"You're backpedalling. You absolutely told us just that earlier in the thread. Has our point sunk in?"

I agree now that some games just aren't cut out for Co-Op let alone Multiplayer, and that the single player experience can be a good one. But there still is a huge market out there that can and should support Multiplayer AND Co-Op when applicable.

I still believe Co-Op adds so much to that "fun" factor you just can't disregard it as some non-mainstream form of play.

Look at all the the new console systems that are leaning towards internet play. Sure it will still take a while for them to dive in all the way but it is coming. Why can't developers just embrace the inevitable?

Jeff

I vote, hope that the upcoming PS2 title Aliens: Colonial Space Marines (which is a squad action game, very cooperative oriented) gets ported to the PC. :)